U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

63–578 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

S. HRG. 106–500

THE WAR IN CHECHNYA: RUSSIA’S CONDUCT,

THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS, AND UNITED

STATES POLICY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 1, 2000

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon

ROD GRAMS, Minnesota

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota

BARBARA BOXER, California

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

STEPHEN E. BIEGUN, Staff Director

EDWIN K. HALL, Minority Staff Director

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

Abuzayd, Karen Konig, Regional Representative to the U.S. and the Caribbean, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8

Bouckaert, Peter, Investigator, Human Rights Watch ......................................... 11

Dine, Thomas, President, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty ............................... 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21

APPENDIX

An Additional Statement by Senator Biden .......................................................... 41

Senate Resolution 261 ............................................................................................. 42

Senate Resolution 262 ............................................................................................. 47

Maps ......................................................................................................................... 51

(III)

(1)

THE WAR IN CHECHNYA: RUSSIA’S CONDUCT,

THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS, AND UNITED

STATES’ POLICY

Wednesday, March 1, 2000

U.S. SENATE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m., in Room

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Jesse Helms,

chairman of the committee, presiding.

Present: Senators Helms, Wellstone, Feingold, Kerry, and Biden

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to bring the Committee to order. All

Committees are meeting this morning, and it is sort of a round

robin. Senators who intend to be here are not here yet, but they

will be here. And, this is the way it is in the early part of the year,

when everybody is trying to get legislation going, including us.

Well, we certainly have a distinguished panel this morning. Mr.

Thomas Dine, whom we all know, president of Radio Free Europe/

Radio Liberty; and Mr. Peter—

Mr. BOUCKAERT. Bouckaert.

The CHAIRMAN.—Bouckaert, an investigator for the Human

Rights Watch, Washington D.C.; and here we go with Ms.—Ms.

Karen Konig AbuZayd.

Ms. ABUZAYD. AbuZayd.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I—I was not even close, was I?

Well, we are glad to have all three of you. You are very prominent in your fields and uniquely qualified to discuss the war in

Chechnya, the reprehensible conduct of the Russian government in

that conflict and the implications of this conflict for the United

States.

Now, then, Tom Dine, as I mentioned earlier is president of

Radio Free/Liberty Radio Europe, which has a substantial presence

in Russia. And Mr. Dine has worked tirelessly in recent weeks to

ensure the safety and welfare of the distinguished Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reporter, Andrei Babitsky. I sure appreciate

your coming.

And Peter—I am not—I am going to leave your surname alone.

I—we are—we are good friends, so you first-name me, and I will

first-name you, and we will both come out ahead.

[LAUGHTER.]

The CHAIRMAN. Peter, who is with Human Rights Watch, just arrived from Russia, where for the past three months he has been inVerDate 29-MAR-10 10:49 Jun 05, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 63578 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
2

vestigating the atrocities committed in the ongoing war in

Chechnya. We welcome you, sir.

And, we are pleased to have this delightful lady, who puts up

with my mangling her surname, AbuZayd. I did better that time.

Ms. ABUZAYD. That is good.

The CHAIRMAN. Good. She is—and she is the regional representative to the United States and the Caribbean of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Refugees. The UNHCR has also been examining the tragic state of human rights in Chechnya. And, we welcome you.

Now, before Mr. Dine begins his testimony, he has a brief fiveminute film on the Russian assault on Grozny, a horrifying portrait

of Russia’s brutality against the inhabitants of that city.

And I believe it is important for this Committee to view this film.

I wish that the world could see it, because it brings home for us

the enormous human suffering caused by Russia’s brutal campaign

in Chechnya, a war that most of the world seems perfectly content

to ignore.

Now, let us just for the record say that more than 100,000

Chechen were killed in the first Russo-Chechnya war of 1994 to

1996—100,000 out of a population of fewer than 1 million.

Today the Kremlin is trying to undo its military defeat of four

years ago with indiscriminate use of force that, again, has left

countless thousands of innocent men, women and children dead,

and hundreds of thousands homeless.

The capital city of Chechnya is Grozny. And it has been subjected to a destruction unseen in Europe since World War II. A

photo of that city has been blown up to show precisely what I

mean. And indeed, what has been done to Grozny surpasses even

the havoc that Milosevic has wrought upon the towns and cities of

both Bosnia and Kosova.

At a time when Western governments have turned a blind eye

to this conflict, the ability of journalists to report objectively on this

war and its horrors has become all the more important.

The Russian acting president, Vladimir Putin, appears to recognize this only too well. Freedom of the press is another victim of

his war.

Nowhere has this war against the press been more blatant than

in the case of Andrei Babitsky. For his unfavorable accounts of the

Russian military’s conduct, he was detained by Russian authorities,

and then he disappeared. Today, I am relieved that he is alive and

now with his family.

Our ability to help Russia evolve into a stable democracy cannot

be effective if we ignore such systematic repression of the press and

the brutal campaign of terror Russia has conducted.

Nor is it helpful for Western governments to portray this as a legitimate battle against terrorists, and certainly not for the President of the United States to call this a war—and he used the word

‘‘liberation,’’ in the recent essay for Time Magazine. This premise

was not only extremely misleading. It is morally flawed and shortsighted.

And I am proud that while the rest of the world has sought to

ignore or pretend that the war in Chechnya is legitimate, Congress

has stepped forward and condemned Russia’s brutality there.

3

Now, let us look at the film.

[Video.]

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that makes me even prouder that this past

Thursday, the Senate passed unanimously Resolution 261 condemning the detainment of Mr. Babitsky and called for his safe return and demands an end to the systematic harassment of the

press in Russia.

The Senate also passed Resolution 262, authored by Senator

Wellstone, to repudiate the notion that the Chechen people are terrorists and underscore their right to defend themselves against the

indiscriminate use of force. It also urges President Clinton to promote negotiations between the Kremlin and the Chechen government.

Now, it is no small coincidence that the day after these two resolutions were passed by unanimous consent, the Kremlin suddenly

found Andrei Babitsky. I do not know where he was hiding, but

they found him.

Now, imagine what could have been accomplished if the administration had addressed this conflict as more than a rhetorical priority in our relationship with Russia.

Now, Senator Biden will make his opening statement when he

gets here, but the Senator from—from the distinguished State of

Minnesota has asked for a couple of minutes to make a statement

too.

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very

brief, and I just want to thank each of you for being here today to

testify.

I want to say I am not surprised to see Senator Feingold here,

who has been a consistent strong voice for human rights. And I

would like to especially thank the human rights community for

their concern.

In that film, Mr. Chairman, I noticed that one of the women said,

‘‘What is the world doing?’’ And that just sent chills down my

spine. I would like to thank you for leadership on this.

The only reason I asked for one minute is that I was disappointed because—although we did pass these resolutions, we did

this work together, and I know it has been important to people in

Chechnya, and others have taken this resolution and it has been

circulated—I do not feel like there was as much of a focus as I

think there needs to be.

And I want to very briefly just repeat some of this resolution,

and note especially for the Administration that I am disappointed,

very disappointed, that we do not have a panelist here representing

the Administration.

I know we asked them to come. My understanding is we will get

somebody in a separate hearing, but frankly my view as a Senator

is there ought to be somebody here from the administration at this

very, very important hearing.

I just want to mention a couple of aspects of the resolution referred to by the Chairman, S. Res. 262. It called on the government

of the Russian Federation to ‘‘allow into and around Chechnya

international missions to monitor and report on the situation there

and to investigate alleged atrocities and war crimes; allow international humanitarian agencies immediate full and unimpeded acVerDate 29-MAR-10 10:49 Jun 05, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 63578 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
4

cess to Chechen civilians, including those in refugee, detention, and

so called ‘filtration camps’ and any other facility where the citizens

of Chechnya are detained; and investigate fully the atrocities committed in Chechnya . . . and initiate prosecutions against those officers and soldiers accused.’’

It called on our President to ‘‘promote peace negotiations between

the government of the Russian Federation and the leadership of

the Chechen government, including President Aslan Maskhadov,

through third-party mediation by the OSCE, United Nations or

other appropriate parties; endorse the call of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights for an investigation of alleged war crimes by the Russian military in Chechnya; and . . .

take tangible steps to demonstrate to the Government of the Russian Federation that the United States strongly condemns its brutal conduct in Chechnya and its unwillingness to find a just political solution . . ..

Every day the reports are horrifying. And the reason that I mention this is this resolution for—for journalists and others that were

here, was passed unanimously by the—the Senate, in part because

of your help.

This was meant to be a strong message. And I would suggest,

Mr. Chairman, that those of us here—Senator Biden and others—

may want, next week, to reword this and put together yet another

strong resolution, bring it to the floor of the Senate, and have some

discussion on the floor of the Senate, because I think we must put

a focus on this.

I think we are going to have to speak up, Mr. Chairman, more

and more and more so.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Russell, how about some words from you?

Senator FEINGOLD. Just very briefly. And—and the most important thing is to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank Senator

Wellstone for the leadership on this.

We have to speak out on these kinds of human rights violations

wherever they occur in the world. And I believe this hearing is especially important because I fear that the United States government has accepted a dangerous assumption about the violence in

Chechnya.

I fear that the administration believes that in order to pursue a

cooperative relationship with a formidable power like Russia, the

United States somehow has to accept the terrible human costs of

the Chechnya campaign.

And I think that assumption is wrong. And I am sure the Chairman does as well. The assumption is wrong, because the lives of

civilians cannot be bargained away in the pursuit of engagement.

That is simply too high of a price to pay.

And also it is just as important to say that the assumption offers

a false promise. History has proven that there can be no lasting

order without justice.

I do share the Administration’s desire to see a stable, prosperous,

democratic Russia take shape. But that will never happen as long

as grave human rights abuses like those perpetrated by the Russian military in Chechnya continue to be a part of Moscow’s policy.

5

It will never happen as long as the Russian government denies

international rights groups and non-governmental organizations access to the terrible humanitarian catastrophe of a place like

Chechnya. And it will never happen while independent journalists

are muzzled and the Russian people are denied the truth.

So what is being done by Russia, Mr. Chairman, in Chechnya is

not a liberation struggle. It is not an acceptable or understandable

response to domestic terrorism, as terrible terrorism is. It is abhorrent.

And if we seek a mature post-Cold War relationship between the

United States and Russia, one that aims at a stable and meaningful relationship, the United States has to speak out and condemn

such practices at every opportunity as Senator Wellstone has said,

including, I would add, within the international financial institutions.

So I look forward to the hearing. And I, again, thank very much

the Chairman and the Senator from Minnesota.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say to my two colleagues that the witnesses and I have agreed that I can first-name them, because I

have difficulty with pronunciation.

And before the media gets too interested in that, I will remind

them for a year after Kofi Annan became Secretary General of the

United Nations, they were still saying ‘‘Kofi Annon.’’ Right?

[Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. Karen, you may proceed, ma’am.

STATEMENT OF MS. KAREN KONIG ABUZAYD, REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE TO THE U.S. AND THE CARIBBEAN, UNITED

NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES

Ms. ABUZAYD. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senators.

I am going to concentrate on the humanitarian activities in the

north Caucasus, particularly in Ingushetia. This is where UNHCR

works with a number of U.N. and voluntary agencies to provide assistance and protection to Chechens outside Chechnya, mainly in

Ingushetia, where we have about 200,000 persons, but also in

Dagestan and in Georgia.

Seventy percent of these displaced persons and refugees are in

host families. Twenty percent are spontaneously settled, and only

ten percent in camps set up by the international community.

Around 100,000 of those displaced have returned to Chechnya,

though many are shuttling back and forth.

At this time, about twice as many people are leaving than those

returning each week. And only a quarter of those who go back into

Chechnya are remaining there for good.

On the assistance side, emergency needs are being met outside

Chechnya, but there are sectoral and locational gaps. Our movements are escorted for security reasons, and at our own insistence,

by Russian security forces.

Since mid-September UNHCR has delivered 5,000 tons of aid

worth $4 million on 42 convoys to the North Caucasus, 34 to

Ingushetia; 5 to Dagestan, 1 to North Oseetia, 1 to KarachaevoCherkessia, and 1 yesterday finally, 29 February, to Grozny itself.

6

Yesterday’s ten-truck convoy provided and escorted by our Russian implementing partner, EMERCOM, arrived in the center of

Grozny at midday and offloaded for distribution today through local

hospitals, soup kitchens and bakeries.

Three UNHCR local staff, Chechens, accompanied the convoy

and will monitor the distribution of the 45 metric tons of food, as

well as plastic sheeting, soap, mattresses and blankets.

The convoy is something of a pilot project to allow us to evaluate

security and logistic possibilities for a future aid operation. We also

hope to get a better idea of how many civilians remain in Grozny,

estimated now at between 10,000 and 20,000.

We did have a first report back from our monitors who are having to use the telephone of the Russian general who runs the

EMERCOM office in Grozny, and this is as much as he has been

able to tell us so far. When we get more information, we will provide it to you as we are updated.

In terms of our protection concerns, our immediate concerns

come from the accounts from displaced persons who report widespread displacement from the villages in the Argun Valley, the site,

we believe, of continuing military activities.

Some reports say that thousands of villagers are fleeing in advance of the military offensive as it moves southward. Accounts describe direct shelling of some villages and intense fighting around

others. There are maps attached to my testimony that you can see.

According to the Ingush Migration Service, some 1,800 new internally displaced people arrived in Ingushetia last week from

Chechnya, and 763 returned for good.

Most of the new arrivals are women and children from some of

the most heavily destroyed locations in Chechnya. Many say they

would like to return home, but are afraid to do so, because of lawlessness and reports that all males are being temporarily detained

for identification purposes.

The internally displaced persons told UNHCR monitors that in

the Argun district, all males aged 15 and older are detained by the

local police, the Ministry of Interior Affairs, for purposes of establishing their identity. And they said that some of these men remain

in detention.

Additional protection concerns outside Chechnya for us are the

lack of legal status and necessary documentation for IDPs to access

state provided assistance and to be able to move about freely; and

the continuing fear that in some instances, IDPs are being forced

to return to Chechnya against their will. We have been working on

this problem, and we think we may have it solved.

Persuasion to leave Ingushetia is accomplished sometimes by refusal to register new arrivals, particularly those from the Russiancontrolled areas of Chechnya, for assistance, by de-registering

them, or by cutting the levels of assistance provided to them.

Reports by human rights organizations—which we will hear

more later—and from journalists about atrocities and gross human

rights violations in Chechnya, both in the detention camps set up

by Russian troops and in the towns to which Chechens have tried

to return, appear to be corroborated, at least in part, by the daily

interviews carried out by UNHCR monitors. We are putting some

mechanisms in place to check out the reports more systematically.

7

An officer devoted entirely to what we call protection issues was

sent to the area last week and is in the process of training 18 protection monitors to be able to tell us what is really happening.

UNHCR, however, as in similar conflict situations has certain reporting constraints in order to preserve its impartial presence, protect the IDPs, our staff and the assistance program itself.

We deal with this by sharing verified reports with those agencies

whose mandated task it is to monitor human rights conditions.

The appointment of the former head of the Federal Migration

service to investigate alleged human rights abuses in Chechnya

and the opening up of a passport service in Chechnya, which has

not been available for the past four years, has given rise to some

hope that the situation may begin to improve shortly.

In terms of the future of the operation, following an inter-agency

assessment mission to Ingushetia and just inside the northern Russian-controlled Chechnya, in the first week of February, which

found conditions in the established camps reasonable, but much

below standard in the spontaneous settlements and only slightly

better in the host families, an appeal for funds should be issued

later today or tomorrow covering the period through 30 June.

Continuing emphasis will be placed on water and sanitation with

the intention to upgrade and rehabilitate a failing Ingushetia infrastructure.

Much more emphasis will be placed on shelter, with the main

aim being to repair and improve the host family living compounds.

In addition, some food assistance will be required for the host families.

For the first inter-agency appeal the first part of this year was for $16.2 million and we raised a total of $14.1 million from the

United States, Canada, European governments, Japan and the

Czech Republic.

Particularly since the fall of Grozny, since when the Russian

claim to control the major part of Chechnya, we have been asked

whether we have an intention to function inside Chechnya.

Our opinion is that the situation is not safe yet for the majority

of Chechens to return and we would, therefore, not encourage them

to return at this stage. The recent human rights reports make us

even more cautious.

The second concern is that we cannot yet mount an assistance

operation of significant scale, since we cannot send international

staff into Chechnya yet, even on mission, to ensure proper control

of the implementation of such an operation—due to the omnipresent and undiminished security risks, not only as a result of the

war, but also from criminals.

For the time being, UNHCR and its partners are setting up a

system to provide assistance in Ingushetia for those who elect to

return. And we have developed plans to run our convoys across the

borders into Chechnya, depending upon the feedback in the coming

days from yesterday’s first convoy.

The U.N. Office of the Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs is

also sending a mission to Moscow this afternoon to enter into discussions about setting up a possible assistance operation in

Chechnya.

I thank you for your time.

8

[The prepared statement of Ms. AbuZayd follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN KONIG ABUZAYD

HUMANITARIAN ACTIVITIES IN THE NORTH CAUCASUS

Introduction

UNHCR works with a number of UN and voluntary agencies (OCHA, UNDP,

UNICEF, WFP, WHO, UNFPA, IOM, DRC, ACF, NRC, MSF, Salvation Army, Islamic Relief, World Vision, CARE) to provide assistance and protection to Chechens

outside Chechnya, mainly in Ingushetia (200,000), but also in Dagestan (12,000) and

Georgia (5,000). Seventy per cent of these displaced persons and refugees are in host

families, while 20% are spontaneously settled and only 10% in camps set up by the

international community. Around 100,000 of those displaced have returned to

Chechnya, though many are shuttling back and forth. At this time, about twice as

many people are leaving than those returning each week, but only a quarter of

those going back appear to be remaining in Chechnya.

Assistance

Emergency needs are being met outside Chechnya, but there are sectoral and locational gaps. Our movements are escorted, for security reasons and at our own insistence, by Russian security forces. Since mid-September, UNHCR has delivered

5,000 tons of aid worth $4 million on 42 convoys to the North Caucasus, including

34 to Ingushetia, five to Dagestan, one to North Ossetia, one to KarachaevoCherkessia, and one yesterday, 29 February, to Grozny. Yesterday’s 10 truck convoy,

provided and escorted by our Russian implementing partner, Emercom, arrived in

the center of Grozny at midday and offloaded for distribution today through local

hospitals, soup kitchens and bakeries. Three UNHCR local staff accompanied the

convoy and will monitor the distribution of the 45 metric tons of food (flour, millet,

peas, sugar, barley), as well as 900 pieces of plastic sheeting, 20,000 bars of soap,

230 mattresses and 1300 blankets.

The convoy is something of a pilot project to allow us to evaluate security and

logistic possibilities for a future aid operation. We also hope to get a better idea of

how many civilians remain in Grozny, estimated now at between 10–20,000. Some

of this information should be available later today, at which time we shall share

our updated news.

Protection concerns

Our immediate protection concerns come from accounts from displaced persons

who report widespread displacement from villages in the Argun Valley, the site of

continuing military activities. Some reports say thousands of villagers are fleeing in

advance of the military offensive as it moves southward. Accounts describe direct

shelling of some villages (Shatoy and Bolshie) and intense fighting around others

(ItumKali). (See the maps beginning on page 51.)

According to the Ingush Migration Service, some 1,800 new internally displaced

people arrived in Ingushetia last week from Chechnya and 763 returned for good.

Many of the new arrivals are women and children from some of the most heavily

destroyed locations in Chechnya, including Katar-Yurt and Khikhichu. Many say

they would like to return home, but are afraid to do so because of lawlessness and

reports that all males are being temporarily detained for identification purposes.

IDPs told UNHCR monitors that in the Argun district, all males aged 15 and older

are detained by the local police (the Ministry of Interior Affairs) for purposes of establishing their identity. The IDPs said some of these men remain in detention.

Additional protection concerns outside Chechnya are the lack of legal status and

necessary documentation for IDPs to access state-provided assistance and to be able

to move about freely; and the continuing fear that in some instances, IDPs are being

forced to return to Chechnya against their will. ‘‘Persuasion’’ to leave Ingushetia is

accomplished sometimes by refusal to register new arrivals (particularly from the

Russian-controlled areas of Chechnya) for assistance, by de-registering them, or by

cutting the levels of assistance provided to them. (We also are monitoring the situation of around 150,000 IDPs from Chechnya—the majority of whom are non-ethnic

Chechens—displaced to non-contiguous provinces, since, although ‘‘recognized,’’ they

are mostly unable to register and therefore have consequent difficulties such as entering their children in school.)

Reports by human rights organizations and from journalists about atrocities and

gross human rights violations in Chechnya—both in the detention camps set up by

Russian troops and in the towns to which Chechens have tried to return—appear

to be corroborated at least in part by many of the daily interviews carried out by

9

UNHCR monitors. We are putting some mechanisms in place to check out the reports more systematically. An officer devoted entirely to protection issues was sent

to the area last week. UNHCR, as in similar conflict situations, has certain reporting constraints, in order to preserve its impartial presence and protect the TOPs,

staff and the assistance program itself. We deal with this by sharing verified reports

with those agencies whose mandated task it is to monitor human rights conditions.

The appointment of Mr. Kalamanov, the former head of the Federal Migration

Service, to investigate alleged human rights abuses in Chechnya, and the opening

of a passport service in Chechnya (none having been available for the past four

years) has given rise to some hope that the situation may begin to improve shortly.

Future of the operation

Following an inter-agency assessment mission to Ingushetia (and just inside

northern, Russian-controlled Chechnya) in the first week of February (which found

conditions in the established camps reasonable, but much below standard in the

spontaneous settlements and only slightly better in the host families), an appeal for

funds should be issued today, covering the period through 30 June. Continuing emphasis will be placed on water and sanitation, with the intention to upgrade and

rehabilitate a failing Ingushetia infrastructure. Much more emphasis will be placed

on shelter, with the main aim being to repair and improve the host family living

compounds (sheds, garages, etc. offered as shelter). In addition, some food assistance

will be required for host families. For the first inter-agency flash appeal of $16.2m,

a total of $14.1m has been pledged.

Particularly since the fall of Grozny and the Russian claim to control the major

part of Chechnya, questions have been asked about our intention to function inside

Chechnya. Our opinion is that the situation does not appear to be safe for the majority of Chechens and we would therefore not encourage return at this stage. The

recent human rights reports make us even more cautious. A second concern is that

we cannot mount any assistance operation of significant scale, since we cannot send

international staff into Chechnya, even on mission, to ensure proper control of the

implementation of such an operation—due to the onmipresent and undiminished security risks, not only as a result of the war, but also from criminals.For the time

being, UNHCR and its partners are setting up a system to provide assistance in

Ingushetia for those who elect to return, and we have developed plans to run convoys across the provincial borders into Chechnya, depending on the feedback in the

coming days from yesterday’s first convoy.

The U.N. Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs is also planning to

send a mission to Moscow this week to enter into discussions about setting up a

possible assistance operation in Chechnya.

Humanitarian Assistance in the Northern Caucasus (Russian Federation)

INFORMATION BULLETIN: AS OF 11 FEBRUARY 2000

Visit of the Secretary-General to Moscow

The United Nations Secretary-General visited Moscow from 27 to 29 January

2000 and had meetings with senior Russian officials. The situation in Chechnya was

one of the topics discussed. The Secretary-General reiterated his concerns about the

fate of civilians in the Republic. While the international community fully understands the need for States to combat terrorism, the Secretary-General stressed that

the use of force should be proportional and not endanger civilians. He noted that

for the time being, UN humanitarian assistance is being provided to IDPs outside

Chechnya but he looked forward to the day when UN assistance could be extended

to those within Chechnya when circumstances permit.

Flash Appeal Review

The United Nations deployed a team of international staff to Ingushetia during

the first week of February to review programme implementation, assess priority

needs, and plan future programmes in the region. The findings of the mission will

provide the basis for the extension of the United Nations Consolidated Inter-agency

Appeal which is being proposed to cover the period 1 December 1999–30 June 2000.

The team comprised representatives from UNDP, UNHCR, UNICEF,

UNSECOORD, WFP, WHO, OCHA, UNSECOORD, TOM, and the Danish Refugee

Council (DRC). Representatives of the Russian Government (EMERCOM and the

Federal Migration Service) accompanied the team. The main findings are cited

below:

10

• There are approximately 185,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) in

Ingushetia. (UNHCR/DRC, working in close cooperation the Regional Migration

Service and local administrations was in the process of completing a registration exercise during the review mission.) About 70% of IDPs are living with host

families, 20% in spontaneous settlements, and 10% in camps. While an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 IDPs have returned to Chechnya, population movements into and out of Chechnya continue.

• On the whole, Emercom of Russia, UN agencies, ICRC and NGOs are meeting

the emergency needs although gaps still exist. Agencies are continuing to provide emergency food rations, medicines, warm clothing, water and sanitation.

They will also now start to focus on programmes such as education, income generation, and psycho-social rehabilitation. The UN appeal, due to be issued on

1 March 2000, will describe possible scenarios, priority requirements and specific ways to address them.

• The security situation throughout the northern Caucasus continues to hamper

humanitarian action. Staff movements and presence has to be limited, complicating management and monitoring of aid operations.

Exploratory Mission to Chechnya

During the review of the UN flash appeal, the opportunity arose to conduct a oneday exploratory mission inside Chechnya to gain a first-hand indication of the overall situation and to help the UN agencies carry out contingency planning.

The four-person UN team comprised members of UNHCR, UNICEF, OCHA and

UNSECOORD. Two officials from Emercom accompanied the team. The team visited

Garagorsk and Znamenskoye in the Nadterechnii district (central-northern

Chechnya). It has 50,000 residents and an additional 35,000 IDPs. 30,000 IDPs are

hosted by residents or live in spontaneous settlements. 5,000 IDPs live in two

camps, managed by Emercom and the Federal Migration Service. The security environment in that particular district appeared relatively stable but remains volatile.

While conditions in camps appeared to be reasonably good thanks to the assistance provided by Emercom and the Federal Migration Service, the situation in the

spontaneous settlements is grim. The district infrastructure is in deplorable shape

but basic services such as electricity, gas and water are working. The team was

struck by a fairly steady flow of cars, buses, and trucks along the district’s roads.

The information gathered by the team will help the UN in its contingency planning

activities.

The Humanitarian ResponseIn total, UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

has sent 28 convoys to Ingushetia and 5 to Dagestan. The last convoy to

Ingushetia comprised 30 trucks which carried more than 300 MTs of food items

and 163 double-tier beds. UNHCR’s previous convoy included winterized tents

and 1,105 double tier beds. Over 4000 MT of food have been delivered.

UNHCR, which has been supplying food commodities to DRC for distribution, has

now exhausted its food budget and the last commodities will be distributed next

week. UN World Food Programme (WFP) commodities have now began to arrive to

cover food requirements for 150,000 persons. The division of labour between agencies targeting IDPs and agencies targeting host families has been complicated by the

fact that population groups are intermingled and are located in over 261 places. The

Russian Ministry of Emergencies (Emercom), WFP, UNHCR, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and DRC are working out new arrangements to address this issue.

UNHCR and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) are working together to improve

the water and sanitation situation. On 1 February, UNHCR and the water and sewage organization of Ingushetia signed an agreement on emergency water supply to

IDP settlements. The agreement comprises water trucking and installation of

UNICEF’s 14 water bladders. Other activities in this sector include rehabilitation

of the central water distribution station, the laying of new distribution pipes, the

provision of water tanks, showers, sewage disposal, and garbage collection.

UNICEF has arranged an air shipment of some 30 MTs non-food items, which are

expected to arrive in Vladikavkaz early next week. These items, including cold chain

equipment to support the Ingush Ministry of Health to have an adequate immunization infrastructure throughout the Republic, will be distributed to various UNICEF

supported assistance projects in Ingushetia.

In addition to programmes implemented by UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, WHO and

ICRC, some 20 NGOs are now working in Ingushetia. Some, such as the DRC and

World Vision (WV) have implementing arrangements with UN agencies in addition

to their own programmes.

11

As of 6 February 2000, DRC had distributed 80,000 winter jackets and boots.

Moreover, DRC expects to distribute some 300,000 hygiene items to be supplied by

UNICEF.

Islamic Relief is supplying clean drinking water to 8 IDP camps, as well as providing food and non-food parcels to 4,100 families in the camps of Sputnik, Severny

and Karabulak. By the end of January 2000, the NGO will have delivered 650 MTs

of aid. Islamic Relief is also operating 4 mobile clinics providing primary health care

in the three above-mentioned camps. The organization will start supplying its 4,100

beneficiary families with coal in the near future. Plans are under way to expand

the programme to additional 4,000 families.

The Centre for Peacemaking and Community Development (CPCD) now has 25

psychologists and trainee psychologists working for the psychological rehabilitation

of traumatized children in four IDPs camps located in Severny, Sleptsovskaya and

Karabulak. In addition, CPCD has distributed food parcels, clothes, blankets, and

hygiene packets in Nazran and Sunzhe (Ingushetia), in Maiskii (North Ossetia) and

in Semovodsk (Chechnya). The organization is also establishing a bakery in

Sleptsovskaya.

Dorcas Aid International has distributed 109 MTs of food and non-food items to

8,000 beneficiaries in Vladikavkaz (North Ossetia), 4,000 IDPs in Mozdok (North

Ossetia), and to TOPs living with host families in Sleptsovskaya and Nazran.

Action Contre la Faim (ACF) started distributing food and hygiene products to

5,700 IDPs in Sleptsovskaya at the beginning of February and plans to expand their

distribution to 29,000 beneficiaries in Karabulak.

The Salvation Army has distributed baby food to more than 8,000 children under

three in Malgobek, Nazran and Sunzhenski districts. A shipment of medicines will

also be distributed shortly to vulnerable population in these areas.

People in Need Foundation is currently providing some 3,000 children with food,

school materials and basic medical care in 4 spontaneous settlements of Ingushetia.

The UN Inter-agency Flash Appeal: 1 December 1999–29 February 2000

As of end of January, the donor community had pledged US$14.1 million against

the UN interagency flash appeal, compared to the US$ 16.2 million requested.

Whereas UNHCR, UNICEF and OCHA are completely funded, UNFPA, WFP, and

WHO still require funds.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bouckaert.

STATEMENT OF MR. PETER BOUCKAERT, INVESTIGATOR,

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Mr. BOUCKAERT. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is

a pleasure to be here today. And I thank you for your attention to

the deepening crisis in Chechnya.

My name is Peter Bouckaert. And I am the Emergencies Researcher at Human Rights Watch. I have just returned from three

months in Ingushetia, the Republic neighboring Chechnya, where

I have been documenting war crimes and other abuses in the war

in Chechnya.

Human Rights Watch researchers have been on the ground in

Ingushetia since the beginning of November, and we have interviewed more than 500 witnesses in great detail about abuses.

Because of our permanent presence in the region, we are able to

collaborate eyewitness accounts through independent and consistent testimonies.

Our research findings on Chechnya are publicly available in the

form of some 40 press releases and two reports, and provide detailed information about the abuses summarized in my testimony.

They are available on—on our website, and I have brought copies

with me today.

The evidence we have gathered in Chechnya is disturbing. Russian forces have committed grave abuses, including war crimes in

their campaign in Chechnya.

12

In Grozny, the graffiti on the wall reads, ‘‘Welcome to Hell, Part

Two,’’ about as good a summary as any of what Chechen civilians

have been living through in the past five months.

Russia talks about fighting a war against terrorism in Chechnya,

but it is Chechen civilians who have borne the brunt of the Russian

offensive in this war, as in the first Chechen conflict.

Most abuses we have documented have been committed by Russian forces, but we have also documented serious abuses by

Chechen fighters.

Mr. Chairman, since the beginning of this conflict, Russian forces

have indiscriminately and disproportionately bombed and shelled

civilian objects, causing heavy civilian casualties.

Russian forces have ignored their Geneva Convention obligations

to focus their attacks on combatants, and appear to have taken few

safeguards to protect civilians. It is this carpet-bombing campaign,

which has been responsible for the vast majority of civilian deaths

in the conflict in Chechnya.

The Russian forces have used powerful surface-to-surface rockets

on numerous occasions, causing heavy death tolls in the hundreds

in the Central Market bombing in Grozny and in many smaller

towns and villages.

Lately, Russian commanders have threatened to use even more

powerful explosives, including fuel air explosives, which could have

a disastrous casualty count if used against civilian targets.

The bombing campaign has turned many parts of Chechnya to a

wasteland; even the most experienced war reporters I have spoken

to told me they have never seen anything in their careers like the

destruction of the capital, Grozny.

Russian forces have often refused to create safe corridors to allow

civilians to leave areas of active fighting, trapping civilians behind

front lines for months.

The haggard men and women who came out of Grozny after their

perilous journey told me of living for months in dark, cold cellars

with no water, gas or electricity and limited food. The young children were often in shock, whimpering in the corners of their tents

in Ingushetia and screaming in fright whenever Russian war

planes flew over, reminding them of the terror in Grozny.

Men especially face grave difficulties when attempting to flee

areas of fighting. They are subjected to verbal taunting, extortion,

theft, beatings and arbitrary arrest.

On several occasions, refugee convoys have come under intense

bombardment by Russian forces causing heavy casualties.

Currently, tens of thousands of civilians remain trapped in the

Argun River Gorge of Southern Chechnya, stuck behind Russian

lines, without a way out from the constant bombardment and rapidly running out of food supplies.

For many Chechens, the constant bombardment was only the beginning of their horror. Once they came into contact with Russian

forces, they faced even greater dangers.

Human Rights Watch has now documented three large-scale

massacres by Russian forces in Chechnya.

In December, Russian troops killed 17 civilians in the village of

Alkhan-Yurt while going on a looting spree, burning many of the

remaining homes and raping several women.

13

We have documented at least 50 murders mostly of older men

and women by Russian soldiers in the Staropromyslovski District

of Grozny since Russian forces took control of that district—innocent civilians shot to death in their homes and their yards. In one

case, three generations of the Zubayev family were shot to death

in the yard of their home.

On February 5th, a few days after Secretary of State Albright

met with President Putin in Moscow, Russian forces went on a killing spree in the Aldi district of Grozny, shooting at least 62 and

possibly many more civilians who were waiting in the street and

their yards for soldiers to check their documents.

These were entirely preventable deaths, not unavoidable casualties of war. They were acts of murder, plain and simple.

Refugees are returning to Grozny to find their relatives or neighbors shot to death in their homes. And most disturbing of all, there

is no evidence that the killing spree has stopped.

In the past month, the Russian forces have begun arresting large

numbers of civilian men throughout Chechnya. These men, numbering well over 1,000, and some women have been taken to undisclosed detention facilities, and their relatives are desperately trying

to locate them.

I have spoken to men who have been able to pay their way out

of these detention camps, and they have given me consistent and

detailed testimony about constant beatings, severe torture, and

even cases of rape of both men and women.

One of the men I have interviewed suffered from a back injury

after being hit by a heavy metal hammer.

A second man had several broken ribs and suffered from kidney

problems from the severe beatings.

The constant attacks by Russian forces against the civilian population have caused more than 200,000 Chechens to flee into neighboring Ingushetia, overwhelming the local population, which numbers only some 300,000.

Many more internally displaced persons are trapped inside

Chechnya, especially in the Southern Argun River Gorge, unable to

seek safety because of the refusal of Russian forces to create safe

corridors.

The conditions in the refugee camps are dire, with inadequate

shelter, food, clean water, heating and other essentials. Only a minority of refugees are housed in crowded tent camps or railway

cars. The majority live in makeshift shelter, in abandoned farms,

empty trucking containers or similar substandard shelter. Many

are forced to pay large sums for private housing.

Because the refugees are forced to rely on their own limited resources for survival, they are often forced to return to what is still

a very active war zone when they run out of money, putting their

lives at renewed risk.

Russia is not allowing humanitarian organizations to operate

freely in Ingushetia and is virtually blocking any direct assistance

to needy persons inside Chechnya.

Refugee children in Ingushetia are not attending school and medical needs often go unmet.

14

The contrast with the international response to last year’s

Kosovo crisis is striking, although the security concerns and Russian obstruction are certainly relevant factors.

Russian authorities have repeatedly attempted to force refugees

to return to Chechnya by denying them food in the camps or by

rolling their train compartments back to Chechnya.

Russia is attempting to relocate refugee populations to areas of

Northern Chechnya under Russian control, which would place

them beyond the direct reach of international humanitarian agencies and under more direct Russian control.

The border between Chechnya and Ingushetia is regularly closed,

preventing refugees from fleeing to safety and often splitting up

families stranded on different sides of the border.

Following the destruction of the capital, Grozny, and many other

towns and villages in Chechnya, and the widespread looting and

burning of homes, many refugees simply no longer have homes to

return to. Everything they owned in this world has been destroyed.

As in all conflicts where we work, Human Rights Watch documents violations by all sides to the conflict in Chechnya. We have

uncovered evidence of serious abuses by Chechen fighters in the

conflict.

Chechen fighters, particularly those among them who consider

themselves Islamic fighters, have shown little regard for the safety

of the civilian population, often placing their military positions in

densely populated areas and refusing to leave civilian areas even

when asked to do so by the local population.

Village elders who tried to stop Chechen fighters from entering

their village have been shot or severely beaten on several occasions.

In short, the Chechen fighters have added to their—to the civilian casualty count in Chechnya by not taking the necessary precautions to protect civilian life.

Some Chechen fighters were also responsible for brutal abuses in

the interwar years, including widespread kidnapings and hostage

takings.

And there is convincing evidence that Chechen fighters have executed captured Russian soldiers in this conflict.

But without minimizing the seriousness of abuses carried out by

Chechen fighters, it is important to state that the primary reason

for civilian suffering in Chechnya today is abuses committed

against the civilian population by Russian forces.

One of the most troubling aspects of the war is that the Russian

authorities have failed to—to act to stop abuses perpetrated by

their troops in Chechnya.

There is simply no indication that the Russian authorities have

taken any steps to prevent these abuses, to investigate them when

they do happen, and to punish those responsible.

As a result, a climate of impunity is rapidly growing in

Chechnya. Russian soldiers know that they can treat civilian—civilian—Chechen civilians however they like and they will not face

any consequences.

Nowhere is the failure of the military authorities to stop abuses

in Chechnya more obvious than in the widespread looting which

has taken place in Chechnya since the beginning of the war.

15

Soldiers are systemically looting civilian homes, carting away the

stolen goods on their military trucks and storing them at their barracks in plain daylight. The looting is visible to everyone, and it

is occurring right under the noses of their commanders. Yet nothing is being done to stop this and other abuses.

The absolute failure of the Russian military command to stop

war crimes, particularly summary executions, in Chechnya makes

them highly complicit in these abuses. Instead of acting to prevent

abuses, the Russian military has continued to issue blanket denials

about abuses.

In the face of the overwhelming mountain of evidence about

abuses in Chechnya, these blanket denials are unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, equally worrying is a lack of a strong Western response to the abuses in Chechnya. Instead of using its relationship

with Russia to bring an end to the abuses in Chechnya, the Clinton

Administration has focused on cementing its relationship with Acting President Putin, the prime architect of the abusive campaign

in Chechnya.

Secretary of State Madeline Albright traveled to Moscow while

bombs were raining down on Grozny, and chose to focus her remarks on Acting President Putin’s qualities as the new leader of

Russia, rather than on the brutal war in Chechnya.

U.S. officials continue to understate the level of atrocities in

Chechnya, talking about abuses in the war rather than calling

those abuses by their proper name, war crimes.

The administration is understating the amount of influence and

power it has over Moscow, because the administration wants to

continue with business as usual and mend its ties with Moscow in

the wake of the NATO bombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia.

To date, the international community has given the Russian government no reason to fear any repercussions for its actions in

Chechnya.

The United States and its Western allies could be doing a lot

more to stop the brutal abuses in Chechnya.

Starting Friday at the trilateral EU-U.S.-Russia meeting in Lisbon, they must call the abuses in Chechnya by their proper name,

war crimes, and must insist that there will be no ‘‘business as

usual’’ with Russia while these violations continue.

The West must insist on accountability for the crimes committed

in Chechnya, and an end to the rapidly growing climate of impunity developing in Chechnya.

An immediate international monitoring presence should be established to document war crimes and other abuses in Chechnya and

to provide the international community with accurate and reliable

information about abuses in Chechnya.

The U.S. should push the World Bank and the IMF to explicitly

suspend pending loan payments until the Russian Federation takes

steps to rein in its troops, beginning a—and begin a meaningful

process of accountability for abuses, and fully cooperates with the

deployment of an international monitoring presence in the North

Caucasus.

The IMF and the World Bank should not be financing a government bent on a policy that is so destructive and contrary to their

16

institutional mandates as the Russian military operation in

Chechnya.

The U.S. should encourage its European allies to bring a case to

the European Court of Human Rights, charging Russia with the

blatant violations of its International Treaty obligations in the conduct of the Chechen war.

The conduct of the Chechen war and the creation of a Commission of Inquiry should be a prominent item for discussion at the upcoming U.N. Human Rights Commission meeting, and the U.S.

should—must insist on a discussion of the Chechen conflict at the

U.N. Security Council, because the conflict in Chechnya has major

implications for international peace and security.

Mr. Chairman, please allow me to end my testimony with an expression of thanks and a plea. I will be returning to Ingushetia

soon. And I want to bring a message of hope to the victims of this

war, the Chechen civilians who had nothing to do with why this

war started, yet who are suffering the greatest.

I want to be able to tell them that the West cares about their

suffering, and that they have not been forgotten.

I will take copies of the Senate resolution adopted last week.

Thank you for that expression of concern. But my plea is that your

engagement not begin and end there, but that you exercise sustained leadership towards establishing U.S. policy towards Russia

that insists on accountability and an end to violations.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank you. And I have tried in the nearly

28 years that I have been here to let politics stop at the water’s

edge, but I am ashamed of our government in this regard. I am

ashamed of comments that have been made in defense of Russia,

and that is what it amounts to.

But I—the two of you who have already testified have been

great. And Tom Dine is going to be equally great, because I know

him. Tom.

STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS DINE, PRESIDENT, RADIO FREE

EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY

Mr. DINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for this hearing. I thank the members of the Committee who have been with

you in expressing yourselves so forcefully.

Each one of your messages, starting with your letter, Mr. Chairman, with Senator Biden on the 31st of January was a shot across

the bow of the Putin Presidency and the Putin policies that have

just been articulated here so eloquently. So I join with everyone in

thanking you personally, thanking the Committee, thanking the

Senate.

The articulation of the centrality of freedom of the press, the articulation of the violations in Russia of the freedom of press, and

what has been going on in Chechnya, are critical.

I believe that your letters, your resolutions have had impact. We

saw it for sure in your first letter in—in expressing a sense of urgency, and it played a key role, I believe, in Moscow’s decision to

finally release Andrei Babitsky this past Friday and return him to

his wife and family and colleagues in Moscow.

17

Mr. Chairman, he is still not free, however. He is under a ruling

of the Ministry of Interior to stay in Moscow as the charges against

him are worked out through the Russian judicial system.

So this odyssey, this illogical, horrible, tragic odyssey in violation

of all that we stand for as global citizens, as well as American citizens, is still going on.

The title of the film that you showed excerpts of, ‘‘The Dark Side

of the World,’’ is an understatement in terms of what is taking

place.

The Czech journalists who made this film showed it to us in

Prague just a couple of weeks ago, to all of our journalists who assemble every morning at 11:00 o’clock for what is called the editorial board meeting.

And all of us were just horrified. The fact that Andrei Babitsky

participated with those who made that film made it even more telling and more stinging for all of us.

Just a little housekeeping—I have a much longer statement. If

you would, sir, I would appreciate it if it would be included in the

record.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, in the case of all of you, if you have additional statements, we will include those in the printed record of

this meeting.

Mr. DINE. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. And you may proceed.

Mr. DINE. Across the post-Communist world, media freedom is

under attack from governments who do not want a free press, the

very press that monitors what governments do and inform their

citizens about what governments do. And because media freedom

is the basis of all other freedoms, all freedoms that we cherish are

now at risk as well.

As you know, over the past six weeks, we have had a dramatic

demonstration of this in the Russian detention and mistreatment

of our correspondent, Andrei Babitsky.

As you know from the most recent news report, we are elated

that he is still alive; and as I have just indicated, he is still, however, is not totally free. So the struggle continues.

Today, I would like to mention three things: First, to tell you

about the case and the lessons we have learned from it; to outline

some of the broader challenges we face across this region that we

broadcast to; and to tell you something about what we at Radio

Free Europe/Radio Liberty are doing to meet those challenges.

First, about Andrei Babitsky. He is an accomplished veteran correspondent. Most of his coverage has been about violent conflict

and war.

The CHAIRMAN. Right.

Mr. DINE. He is only 36 years old. During the first Chechen war

from 1994 to 1996, and, again, since November 1999, Andrei was

on—on the scene providing accurate and even-handed reporting

about this endless, terrible conflict. He was criticized by both sides,

but only one, the Russians—the Russian side took action against

him.

The Russian Media Center in the North Caucasus on December

27th lambasted Andrei for his reporting about the large number of

18

Russian casualties and of the even larger number of civilian deaths

Russian forces had caused.

That Russian act of intimidation did not work, nor did the shortterm arrest of other journalists or the harassment of Andrei himself. He continued to report honestly and accurately, often at the

risk of putting himself in danger.

In early January, Mr. Chairman, his wife was then harassed. He

had come home to Moscow for the holiday break and had brought

film footage with him that he had taken in Chechyna, gone to the

local photo store in the neighborhood he lives in, and then he went

back to Chechnya to continue reporting.

His wife, Lyudmilla, went to pick up the film. When she was inside the shop, the entrepreneur picked up the phone and called

whomever, probably Ministry of Interior people, and two authorities of the Russian government came into the store, took the film,

intimidated Mrs. Babitsky, and that film has never been seen

again. Their apartment was then violated as well.

On the 16th of January, Andrei was detained in Chechnya and

put into a Russian filtration camp. And we have just heard the horrors of several of those which are in Chechnya and the particular

institution Andrei was put into.

And in my prepared testimony that is now part of the record is

a chronology of all of what happened to Andrei Babitsky, and—and

it is quite graphic.

What have we learned from this case? First of all, media freedom

is far from guaranteed in Russia. In fact, what we are witnessing

is regression. And in a previous position, I have been before this

Committee heralding democracy in Russia. But that that was then,

Mr. Chairman. I am afraid to tell you now—I admit what I said

then, but I am telling you forthrightly now what I know from our

own journalists, that Russia is a country that knows not what its

future is and impulsively wants to return to its past.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. DINE. There is intolerance. There is intolerance of an outspoken and critical press. And no society that is worth itself can

do without such an outspoken and critical media.

Second, Russia officials under Putin far too easily slip back into

Soviet era patterns. We have—we have witnessed on the film, on

what Human Rights Watch has reported time after time, what our

correspondents—and we have had three in the Chechen war zone,

including Andrei Babitsky—all of them report totalitarian tactics,

harassment, threats, violation of the human being, the human

body, the human spirit.

We have seen the re-centralizing of authority in Moscow, and

that is not good for all of us.

Today, Andrei Babitsky held a press conference at Radio Liberty

in Moscow. This is the first time he has gone public since he returned from a long stay in Chechnya and a shorter stay in Dagestan.

He opened by thanking his colleagues, the Russian press, so

many of whom have been so valiant, so outspoken and so courageous and so much on the side of press freedom. He described in

detail his odyssey. I do not have all his words yet. He began his

19

press conference just as I got out of the taxicab to come inside this

building.

If we can get a copy of everything, of what he said and get it

translated into English, we will certainly share it with you and

your colleagues.

But he made a persuasive presentation that he was in the hands

throughout this torturous five and a half weeks of Russia’s security

services, which includes the FSB (or the former KGB), and the

Ministry of Interior, known as the MVD. And he was in the hands

of pro-Moscow Chechens.

He described his captivity in many ways. And he said, to make

his point at the end of his statement, that on February 23rd when

he was taken across borders, he knew he was in the hands of the

Russian government authorities, because at a time of great tension

and great security along the borders, he was driven right through.

So he was in the hands of people who knew what they were doing.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. DINE. Third, about the Russian government, the Putin regime has sent a signal that it is prepared to play fast and loose

with the truth. In the Babitsky case, we have only experienced duplicity, tactics that have tried to be confusing to all of us, and to

keep us off the scent of where Andrei Babitsky was.

And—and the good news is, of course, we finally caught up with

him, and he has returned to Moscow.

Many in both Russia and the West are trying to portray this as

an exceptional case, as a bump on the way to a better future. We

believe, however, that we know something more factual about that.

The situation in Russia and Chechnya is distressing. Harassment

of journalists, playing favorites with newspapers, pressure on the

only independent television network, NTV, tightening control over

regional media, all of this with little or no regard to legal niceties.

But in other countries it is even worse. For instance, Belarus is

a disaster. Belarus is now in the hands of a dictator that wants to

be the president of a reunified Russia/Ukraine/Belarus. Ukraine

has been pressuring journalists, particularly during the presidential election held in December.

The Caucasus show few bright spots. But the worst situation of

all is in Central Asia. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan impose censorship daily in the Soviet style. They arrest and harass journalists.

The case of Nurberdy Nurmamedov this past week is an example. He was assigned to jail for five years. Why? He talked to Radio

Liberty’s Turkmenistan correspondents in Prague over the telephone. He was critical about the government in Ashkhabad,

Turkmenistan. So he and his son have now been thrown into the

clinker, and God only knows what is going to happen to them.

Tajikistan and Kazakhstan are slipping backwards. And

Kyrgyzstan, which was so—for—for many of us, our hope-- and I

think I am on record as testifying somewhere on Capitol Hill that

it was the oasis of democracy in the Central Asian desert. And now

we see Kyrgyzstan going retrograde as well.

One of the lessons about this general picture of the region to

which we broadcast to, Mr. Chairman, is privatization did not by

itself guarantee media freedoms.

20

The privately owned press is the object of government intimidation. One of the owners of NTV, the independent—the only independent television network station in Russia—is here this week.

Mr. Guzinsky intimidated by one of his stockholding partners,

Gasprom. Two weeks ago, the chairman of Gasprom said publicly

that what NTV was showing about the—the horrors of Chechnya,

the dark side of the world, was not in the interest of Russia.

Second, post-communist governments in this part of the world

control the electronic media on which most depend, far more than

the print media, on which these countries are typically evaluated

by Western observers.

If you control the television, if you control radio, you do not have

to worry about the newspapers in this part of the world. And,

third, all of these countries are going to need a lot of help from the

outside for a long time to come if they are going to reform their

basic institutions and become modern, open societies.

And I would include in my use of the word ‘‘help,’’ the pleas that

I have heard from all of you today, that is, ‘‘pressure.’’

That brings me to my final point, the continuing mission of Radio

Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Today, we broadcast to 24 countries in

26 languages. These countries are in Central and Eastern Europe,

the former Soviet Union, and Iran and Iraq. All of these areas, in

one form or another, are in political and economic trouble.

We broadcast daily. That amounts to 900 hours a week of language programming in the vernacular—we do not broadcast in

English—to all of these countries.

Also, Mr. Chairman, we have more than 10 million visitors to our

websites every month. And publications such as our daily

‘‘Newsline,’’ which goes to every office on Capitol Hill, and I know

is used up here—is something that is worthy and keeps all of us

informed.

Overall, the events that we have been through over the last five

and half weeks with finding and hopefully freeing finally Andrei

Babitsky, demonstrate the relevance of our mission, the promotion

of democracy.

The telling of truth as we know it, so that people can make their

own decisions in their own way in their own societies. Like so

many of you, who are on the front lines of the battle for freedom,

we know we have to continue the fight, but we are not going to fall

into pessimism.

What is our reason for hope? The response of so many Russians,

the response, especially, of Russian journalists. And I believe you

have behind this, the horrible picture of Grozny, the blowup of a

publication that came out two weeks ago, ‘‘Obshchaya Gazeta.’’

This is a document of four pages that was distributed on the

streets of Moscow, 180,000 copies were distributed. Down the left

column, you see the sponsors, 32 of them, from the Russian press.

RFE/RL is one of those sponsors.

This was Russia’s journalists showing their solidarity with

Andrei Babitsky and their fear of the regression taking place in

Russian society about their press freedoms.

On this score, Mr. Chairman, I promise you and others of this

Committee that we at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, myself

personally, will do everything possible to see Andrei Babitsky fiVerDate 29-MAR-10 10:49 Jun 05, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 63578 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
21

nally, finally freed, to make sure that this horror hopefully never

occurs again, and when it does, whether it is in Turkmenistan,

Uzbekistan, Belarus, or some other place, we are going to do everything we can to get our person out and to uphold the value of freedom of the press.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dine follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. DINE

KEEPING THE WINDOW OPEN: RFE/RL AND MEDIA FREEDOM IN POST-COMMUNIST

COUNTRIES

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for inviting me to appear.

Across the post-communist world, media freedom is under ever-increasing attack

from governments who fear the free flow of information.

Just as the appearance of glasnost almost 15 years ago helped to spark the drive

toward democracy and freedom in Central and Eastern Europe and in the former

Soviet Union, so now this government-sponsored attack threatens to close the window not only on freedom of the press but to close freedom’s windows on the possibility for open societies in places which have known too little freedom in the past.

Over the past six weeks, we at RFE/RL have experienced this renewed government effort to control the media first hand. Russian authorities arrested our correspondent Andrei Babitsky just because he reported honestly about the Chechen

war and more recently have claimed to have handed him over to a Chechen group.

Even though Andrei is now at home in Moscow with his family, this saga is not over

because charges are still pending against him.

This morning, I would like to discuss with you some of the significant lessons we

believe that the Russian government’s actions have for the future. But before doing

that, I want to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this entire

Committee, for the role you played in this case and especially for the Senate resolution you authored and pushed through in support of Andre Babitsky. That document

played a major role in the progress we’ve seen so far, and on behalf of Andrei

Babitsky and all of us at RFE/RL, I want to express our gratitude for your efforts

But my subject is broader than Andrei Babitsky, whose case has received enormous attention from the media and human rights groups around the world and

about whose fate I am sure you are broadly familiar. It is also the disturbing pattern we now see in one postcommunist country after another where governments

which profess to be democratic are in fact seeking to turn back the clock to a time

when rulers decided what those living under their control could know and when

they could know it.

But there is another part of this story, one in which we at Radio Free Europe/

Radio Liberty are playing a major part and one that gives some basis for optimism

about the future. And that is the struggle of journalists and ordinary citizens in

these countries to maintain and expand freedom. As was the case in the worst times

of the Cold War, we are helping them to do so. Not only do our programs send a

powerful signal that they are not alone as they struggle against post-communist tyrannies, but in many countries, our broadcasts help to provide the information and

analysis that the people of these countries cannot yet or can no longer get from their

own domestic news outlets.

In that battle to keep freedom’s window open, we are winning victories every day

over those who would deny to their own people freedom of the press. And because

a free press is the guardian of every other right that free peoples prize, this is a

fight that we must all wage and that we are confident that we will win.

Moscow’s Mistreatment of Andrei Babitsky

All of you have heard about the case of Andrei Babitsky, about his detention by

Russian authorities, his purported transfer to the Chechens, his reappearance in

Daghestan at the end of last week, and his return to Moscow. But allow me to give

you some details about what has happened to him throughout this period. (I have

attached to my testimony a complete chronology of this saga.)

Andrei is 36 and already a prize-winning war correspondent. He won praise for

his accurate and even-handed reporting during the first Chechen war in 1994–96

and won it again for his coverage of the second Chechen war since the fall of last

year. Indeed, at the time of his detention, he was virtually the only independent

journalist in Chechnya, criticized by both sides for his reporting.

22

Between January 15 when we last spoke to Andrei before his detention by Russian officials and February 25 when he reappeared in Daghestan, neither we at

RFE/RL nor any other independent organization had contact with him. And

throughout that six-week-long period, Russian officials regularly issued contradictory, false, and duplicitous statements about Andrei Babitsky’s whereabouts and

condition.

Initially, Russian officials even denied that they had arrested Babitsky and only

acknowledged his detention after we and other media outlets began asking questions. Once they did acknowledge that he was under their control, Russian officials

violated Andrei’s rights as a Russian citizen by denying him contact with his family

and lawyer and repeatedly changed their stories as to why he was being detained.

Then on February 3, Russian officials produced a film clip that purported to show

Babitsky being handed over to Chechen fighters, an action that if true clearly violates not only Russian law but the Geneva Convention as well.On that occasion too,

Russian officials could not decide what the truth was. Some said that Andrei had

volunteered to be exchanged. Others, including Interior Minister Vladimir Rushailo,

claimed that the exchange was entirely legal and proper. And still others asserted

that with this exchange, Moscow no longer bore any responsibility for Babitsky’s

fate.

Such Russian claims and the obvious defects in the film itself—defects which suggested to many people that the entire exchange had been staged for the cameras—

sparked a firestorm of criticism by media and human rights groups in the Russian

Federation and abroad as well as demands by international organizations and some

Western governments that Moscow find Babitsky and restore him to his family and

colleagues.

Then, the Russian authorities produced another film clip purporting to show

Babitsky in Chechen captivity on February 6. But that film too was not without

problems and in fact raised more questions than it answered. Obviously, pro-independence Chechen officials, who would have had every interest in producing

Babitsky to the world and thus embarrassing Moscow, repeatedly denied that any

exchange had taken place or that he was in an area under their control.

In the face of this criticism and mounting fears for Babitsky’s life, Moscow

changed its line once again, asserting—completely implausibly—that Russian officials knew that Babitsky was alive but they did not know where he was. Obviously,

if these officials knew he was alive, they had to know where he was, and if they

didn’t know where he was, then they could not possibly know whether he was alive.

A kind of newspeak that reflects the worst of old times.

On February 15, acting Russian President Vladimir Putin became the latest and

most senior official in Moscow to make that claim and to say that he had askedi

Russia’s security services to ensure Babitsky’s safety.

Speaking to journalists on that date, Putin said that he was in constant contact

with officials in the Russian security services and the office of the prosecutor general. and that these officials were doing ‘‘all they can’’ to ensure that Babitsky remains alive and is set free. But the acting president then undercut his own claims

by suggesting that ‘‘as far as I understand the situation, [Babitsky] already feels

free.’’

Putin’s decision to get involved in the case initially raised hopes that Babitsky

might soon be released, but with each passing day, the acting Russian president’s

words appeared to be nothing more than another example of the Russian government’s obfuscation and delay in this case.

Then, last Friday, Andrei Babitsky resurfaced in Daghestan, brought there in the

trunk of a car from an unknown location. Russian officials subsequently charged

him with passport violations after he used a document that had been forced upon

him. He was then flown to Moscow and was released on his own recognizance while

Russian government investigators continue to examine his case.

Lights Going Off Windows Being Closed

We are elated that Andrei is alive and back with his family, and we expect that

all of the trumped-up charges against him will be dropped. But we remain concerned about something else: Russian officials and some Western observers have attempted to portray the Babitsky case as an isolated incident, a bump on Russia’s

road to a better future. That view is becoming ever harder to sustain not only for

Russia. but for many of the other post-Soviet states as well.

The situation in Russia itself is distressing enough. In Chechnya, the Russian authorities have harassed and even arrested other journalists throughout the conflict.

Moscow has set up a press bureau to ensure that Russian officials and not journalists will determine what Russians read and hear about the conflict. The private

owners of the one independent television network have been subjected to pressure

23

by the government and they in turn have put pressure on NTV to tow the government’s line on Chechnya or face the loss of the owners’ financial backing.

Russian officials now routinely play favorites among journalists, giving interviews

only to those who toe the pro-government line. A Kremlin press officer, for example,

said last week that acting President Putin would never give an interview to the editors of ‘‘Segodnya’’ that has maintained some independence in the face of earlier

pressure. And Duma deputies in the faction which supports Putin have told our correspondents that they will, no longer talk with us.

Moreover, Russian officials are doing this with little regard for legal niceties. Two

weeks ago, the media minister annOunced that Moscow was moving to put the regional press under the control of the central authorities—even though he publicly

acknowledged that there was no law allowing the government to do so. Instead, the

minister fell back on the line that he was acting on the basis of secret ‘‘internal directives.’’

Not surprisingly, both the high profile Babitsky case and these other government

actions have frightened and even intimidated some journalists and their audiences.

The leader of one Russian media watchdog group even said last week that ‘‘this is

the beginning of a tragic epoch for the Russian press.’’

But Russian journalists are trying to fight back. Two weeks ago, a special edition

of the weekly newspaper ‘‘Obshchaya gazeta’’ featured appeals by 32 editors and

writers condemning what the authorities have done to Babitsky and to the media.

‘‘This is a fight for a normal climate,’’ one of them said. ‘‘I don’t expect that after

this, [the authorities] will stop pressuring newspapers and magazines. No. But society will at least evaluate the conditions in which it lives.’’

Most of these recent expressions of concern about media freedom have focused on

the printed press, the only portion of the Russian media that had generally gained

some real independence from the government. The domestic electronic media ‘‘ radio

and especially television—remain under far tighter central control. And since it is

through these channels, rather than via newspapers, that the overwhelming majority of Russians now get their news, the state of press freedom in Russia was already

dire even before the Babitsky case. More recently, the Russian authorities have

moved to increase their ability to,monitor and control the Internet, a channel of

communication many had hoped could escape such government supervision.

But if things are distressing in the Russian Federation, they are even worse elsewhere. The director of our Belarusian service—the only Western Belarusian-language broadcaster to that critically important country—told me just before I came

to Washington that ‘‘the game of press freedom in Belarus is one of few rules and

even fewer winners, but the main loser is the audience.’’ Alyaksandr Lukashenka

bans state-run firms from advertising in the independent media, the information

ministry—a current-day replica of Orwell’s ministry of truth—not only tries to regulate content but even the grammar of articles. And Belarusian society is subjected

to an unceasing Soviet-era style anti-Western propaganda campaign.

The situation in Ukraine is somewhat better, but in recent months, officials there

too have sought to pressure both domestic and foreign broadcasters into avoiding

criticism of the country’s leadership and of the rising tide of corruption there.

In the Caucasus, all three countries have a mixed record, allowing some freedom

but using a variety of means to discourage certain critical reporting. Azerbaijan is

almost certainly the worst offender in that region. Its government has sponsored

raids on journals and television stations that carry criticism of senior officials. It

has confiscated equipment and taken other steps to prevent newspapers and electronic media to do their jobs. And it now has a new press law that imposes draconian penalties on anyone who criticizes the president or his entourage.

But the worst situation in the post-Soviet space is to be found in Central Asia.

There are no bright spots there anymore, a sad commentary on the retreat

Kyrgyzstan has made from its earlier and much-praised commitment to democracy

and freedom. In Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, the governments not only impose

tight censorship over all publications but they regularly harass our correspondents

and even those who speak with our correspondents. Indeed, a few weeks ago, Uzbek

President Islam Karimov lashed out at foreign journalists for their coverage, pointedly suggesting that they were serving foreign masters at high pay.

Tajikistan remains a country torn apart by war. To speak of media freedom there

is to speak about something that does not really exist. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan

appear to be bellwether countries. The state of press freedom in Kazakhstan is deteriorating rapidly. The government has not only harassed journalists, it has used its

fmancial clout to force newspapers and journals to be sold to those close to President

Nursultan Nazarbayev who can then control them even though they remain nominally private.

24

Over the past year, Kazakhstan’s government has prohibited several papers from

going to print or bringing in their publications from abroad, thus effectively killing

most of them. The offices of some papers even have been firebombed. And at the

end of last year, Astana created a new telecommunications billing center to monitor

the use of the Internet by Kazakhstan citizens. To support that effort, the government pushed through a new law allowing the KGB successor organization there to

monitor email messages, fax transmissions and telephone conversations without any

involvement by the courts.

Such arrangements have sent a chill through that society.

Kyrgyzstan, in which so many had placed so much hope, appears to be drifting

off in the same direction, President Askar Akayev has appointed a former communist ideology secretary to oversee the country’s radio and television corporation.

His courts have imposed punitive fines on newspapers and journals which have carried critical articles. And last September, the authorities forced the editor of the

independent ‘‘Vecherniy Bishkek’’ to resign after he published interviews with opposition politicians and a series of articles containing restrained criticism of the government.

All of these developments offer several lessons to those of us concerned about this

region: First, privatization has not been by itself a guarantee of media freedom.

Governments continue to possess the clout to get their views accepted. Second, all

the governments in this region continue to have far greater control over the part

of the media—radio and television—which the population listens to most. Just because you can find alternative views in the press does not mean that people can

afford to buy them if they live in capital cities or that people in the regions ever

see such publications. And third, for these countries to have a chance to establish

press freedom and democracy, they are going to need a lot of outside help for a long

time to come.

That is where our station comes in, and that is what I want to talk to you about

next.

For almost 50 years, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has been broadcasting to

the nations of Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and now for the past two

to Iran and Iraq as well. Our 22 services beam more than 900 hours of vernacular

language programming to these countries, the largest number ever. More than ten

million people visit our website every month. And our publications, including our

flagship RFE/RL Newsline, are essential reading around the world. And we do all

this with only one-quarter of the staff and one-third of the resources we had only

five years ago.

In the aftermath of the collapse of communism in Europe and the disintegration

of the Soviet Union, many thought that our radio station had lost its raison d’etre.

They believed that with communism out of the way and the Soviet empire in ruins,

there was no need for what some called a ‘‘relic’’ of the Cold War. But the last few

years and especially the last few months have demonstrated to everyone’s satisfaction that our reinvented communications company will have a role to play well into

the 21st century. And last fall, I am proud to say, the Congress eliminated 1994

language calling for the end of government funding for our company, and now, as

we fight for Andrei Babitsky, we are learning just how many allies we have across

the world.

But our role today is both different and larger than it was in the past. Until the

late 1980s, we broadcast to a region under tight communist and Soviet control, and

we performed the only role many people still think we have to play: as a surrogate

broadcaster to countries whose populations lack a free press.

More recently, we have acquired two additional roles: as a kind of insurance policy for countries making the first halting steps toward democracy and a free media

and as a model for how journalism should be conducted. With regard to the first,

our very existence tends to moderate the behaviour of officials inclined to censorship. They know that if they try to silence someone, he or she can turn to us. And

that possibility works against a return to the past. And with regard to the second,

our journalists work closely with journalists in many countries, showing them what

professional journalism is all about and helping to give them the courage to practice

it in the face of enormous odds.

When I became president of RFE/RL just over two years ago, I thought that our

surrogate role would decline over time. I still hope that will prove to be the case,

but I know now that such a happy future is still a long way off in many countries.

Indeed, the horizon for that iLs ever more distant in many of the countries we

deliver news to. But such retreats cannot be an excuse for doing less; they must

be the basis for redoubling our efforts. You on this Committee know that better than

most that the path toward human freedom has never been without its twists and

25

turns, its retreats as well as its advances. And I pledge to you that we at Radio

Free Europe/Radio Liberty will continue the fight.

A Final Hopeful Thought

A decade ago, most of us in this room were confident that Russia and her neighbors would move quickly in the direction of democracy and freedom. Indeed, it was

the people of these countries who did the most to stand up for these values and to

give freedom a chance. But now unfortunately, Russia and her neighbors appear to

be retreating from the kind of media freedom that democracy requires. And to the

extent that happens, all of us, Russians and non-Russians, will be the losers.

One Russian commentator summed up the situation we now face far better than

I ever could. Speaking on independent Russian television, he noted that one of

former Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s first steps after the failed August 1991

putsch was to allow Radio Liberty to open a bureau in Moscow. One of Moscow’s

first steps under acting Russian President Vladimir Putin’s administration, this reporter continued, was to arrest Andrei Babitsky, a Radio Liberty journalist.

The way the Russian authorities have treated Andrei Babitsky and the way they

and other governments are attacking media freedom across this region are very real

cause for concern. But the remarks of this Russian commentator, along with the

outpouring of support RFE/RL has received from ordinary Russians and from you

and others around the world, give a basis for hope—as long as we who enjoy the

advantages of media freedom and democracy don’t give up the struggle to extend

them across the world.

A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS SURROUNDING THE DISAPPEARANCE OF RFEIRL

CORRESPONDENT ANDREI BABITSKY

29 February 2000

• Babitsky says he was beaten with a truncheon while being held in a Russian

detention camp in Chechnya.

• A U.S. State Department spokesman says that Washington continues to urge

Moscow to conduct a ‘‘full investigation’’ into the ‘‘alleged exchange of a civilian

journalist’’ for Russian prisoners of war in Chechnya.

28 February

• An RFE/RL correspondent in Makhachkala reports that Babitsky was put on

a special flight from Daghestan to Moscow this evening. Neither Babitsky’s wife

nor his attorney was informed about this move in. advance.

• Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin says he does not believe there is any

need to continue holding Babitsky. He says that he believes that Babitsky was

‘‘more than covering information’’ in Chechnya and that his job was to ‘‘market

a certain type of product.’’

• Russian Interior Minister Vladimir Rushailo says that pro-Moscow Chechen

leader Bislan Gantimirov had ‘‘nothing to do’’ with the exchange of Babitsky for

Russian prisoners in early February and that ‘‘Babitsky was kept by Chechen

terrorists’’ after that time.

• Ludmila Babitskaya meets with her husband in Makhachkala and says that

‘‘Thank God, I found Andrei alive and well, in reasonably good condition.’’ She

says he has begun a hunger strike because ‘‘he doesn’t agree with the decision

to detain him.’’

• Babitsky’s lawyer, Aleksandr Zozulia, says that he will challenge the decision

or the Russian authorities to continue detaining the RFE/RL correspondent. He

notes that Babitsky is in poor health and mentally exhausted.

27 February

• Babitsky’s lawyer Aleksandr Zozulya says that his client is under arrest on

charges of carrying a falsified passport. Zozulya says that Babitsky had this

passport ‘‘forced upon him.’’ He adds that Babitsky has refused to sign the protocol of charges against him.

• Babitsky is no longer at the interior ministry press center in Makhachkala. He

is now at an interior ministry lockup in that city.

• Babitsky’s wife Lyudmila arrives in Makhachkala but has not been allowed to

see her husband.

26 February

• Babitsky tells RFE/RL correspondent Oleg Kusov that he had agreed to be exchanged for Russian prisoners of war but changed his mind when he saw that

he was about to be handed over to unknown masked men. Babitsky said this

while still in detention in the Daghestani capital of Makhachkala.

26

• Babitsky is shown on Russian television being interrogated by a Russian officer

in Makhachkala.

25 February

• Babitsky makes telephonic contact with his colleagues from a Russian interior

ministry detention center in Makhachkala, the capital of Daghestan which

neighbors Chechnya. Lyudmila Babitskaya then telephones her husband from

Prague. She reports that he sounds well but is still under detention. He told

her that he hopes to see her in Moscow or Makhachkala on February 26.

• Viktor Kozin, senior advisor to the Russian foreign ministry’s European Department, says in ‘‘The Moscow Times’’ that RFE/RL alone should be held responsible for Babitsky’s fate and suggests that Moscow should consider whether

RFE/RL operations on Russian soil should be ended

24 February

• The US Senate passes unanimously a resolution calling on Moscow to provide

information on the fate of Babitsky.

• Alberto Mora, a member of the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, proposes

the establishment of a new RFE/RL broadcast service to Chechnya.

• Latvian Foreign Minister Indulis Berzins issues a statement expressing concern

about Babitsky’s fate and noting that ‘‘the story of Andrei Babitsky is a plain

message. What happened to him could happen to any person who investigates

what is really happening in Chechnya.’’

23 February

• Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin tells visiting British Foreign Secretary

Robin Cook that Babitsky is alive and in the hands of Chechen civilians. Cook

says this is ‘‘welcome news, but we would also welcome direct contact.’’

• In a letter released to the press, Babitsky’ s lawyers say that the Russian authorities have not allowed them to review written materials in the criminal case

initiated against Babitsky or explained why prosecutors continue to claim that

Babitsky has lost the right to counsel.

22 February

• Nikolai Kovalyev, former Federal Security Service chief and deputy chair of the

Duma Security Committee, says that the Babitsky case is ‘‘absolutely incomprehensible,’’ adding that ‘‘it raises a multitude of questions.’’ He noted that the

reported exchange of Babitsky for Russian prisoners ‘‘does not fit into the

framework of existing legislation.’’

18 February

• ‘‘Komsomolskaya pravda’’ carried a report that Babitsky is alive and ‘‘probably’’

located in the Chechen village of Duba-Yurt with Chechen field commander

Rizvan Chitigov.

• US Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Evelyn Lieberman visits RFE/

RL’s Moscow Bureau ‘‘to express once again the United States government’s serious concern about the fate of Babitsky.’’

• Russian Press Minister Mikhail Lesin says that he is not in favor of any limit

or ban on RFE/RL broadcast to Russia. ‘‘Ban or not ban, they will listen anyway’’ to that station, Lesin adds.

• Russian human rights activist and Duma deputy Sergei Kovalyev says that

Russian actions in Chechnya are ‘‘close to a genocide’’ and that press freedom

in Russia is increasingly at risk.

• The Russian PEN Club admits Babitsky as an honorary member.

17 February

• State Department spokesman James Rubin cites the United States’ ‘‘profound

concern’’ about the fate of RFE/RL Correspondent Andrei Babitsky, whose condition and whereabouts in Chechnya are still unknown. He also reiterates that

Secretary of State Madeleine Aibright made clear in recent talks with acting

President Vladimir Putin that Russia would be held responsible for Babitsky’s

fate.

• The U.S. State Department says Russia would be ‘‘well advised’’ to provide the

necessary accreditation to journalists to report freely from Chechnya. Rubin

says the U.S. regards it as ‘‘unacceptable’’ to treat working journalists as if they

were prisoners of war.

• International humanitarian organizations react with scepticism to acting President Vladimir Putin’s appointment of an official to safeguard human rights in

Chechnya. Amnesty International says naming of Vladimir Kalamanov is unVerDate 29-MAR-10 10:49 Jun 05, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 63578 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
27

likely to result in ‘‘investigations and prosecutions’’ of Russian human rights

violations in Chechnya. Human Rights Watch says allegations of torture and indiscriminate bombing by Russian forces should be investigated as war crimes.

16 February

• Russian journalists sound alarm over what they say is a growing threat to press

freedom following the disappearance of Radio. Liberty reporter Andrei Babitsky

in Chechnya. They made their statement in a special black-and-white edition

of the Obshchaya Gazeta newspaper, only published when Russia’s press freedom appears endangered.

• The Russian Interior Ministry says that ‘‘no search for Babitsky has been initiated.’’ Such a search, the Ministry says, will take place ‘‘if the investigators

issue an appropriate warrant.. But we have not received any document of this

kind so far.’’

• Oleg Mironov, Russia’s human rights commissioner, criticizes the Russian government for turning over Babitsky to Chechen rebels. ‘‘We don’t know’’ where

he is, Mironov says. ‘‘The situation with Babitsky causes bewilderment and indignation,’’ he says. ‘‘It comes as a signal that the same thing may happen to

every reporter.’’

• Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,

issues a statement noting that Babitsky’s release ‘‘into the hands of people the

Russian authorities consider terrorists would be in contravention of the provisions’’ of the Geneva convention. She calls for increased monitoring of the

human rights situation in Chechnya.

15 February

• Adrian Karatnycky, president of Freedom House, says that Russia’s treatment

of Babitsky is ‘‘a litmus test in the way the Dreyfus case was in turn-of-thecentury France—a major case involving an individual which reveals all sorts of

hidden problems within the broader political system and society.’’

• Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin tells journalists that Russian officials

handling Babitsky’s case are doing ‘‘all they can’’ to ensure his safety. But Putin

adds that from what he knows, Babitsky already considers himself ‘‘free.’’

14 February

• Lyudmila Babitskaya has filed a missing persons report about her husband

with the Moscow department of the Russian interior ministry. She asks that the

authorities investigate his disappearance. The interior ministry officials accepted her request.

• The Glasnost Fund, a Russian human rights organization, says it plans to file

a complaint against Russian presidential spokesman Sergei Yastrzhemsky over

Babitsky’s treatment.

13 February

• Russian Interior Minister Vladimir Rushailo defends as ‘‘correct and justified’’

a decision to trade Babitsky for two Russian prisoners of war. Speaking on Russian television, Rushailo says that Babitsky is still alive.

11 February

• U.S. Senators Edward Kennedy, Patrick Leahy and Mitch McConnell send a letter to acting Russian President Vladimir Putin asking him to ‘‘do all you can

to ensure Mr. Babitsky is safety.’’

• More than 2,000 people demonstrate in Moscow’s Pushkin Square to demand

the release of Babitsky.

• Moscow’s ‘‘Dos’e na tsenzuru’’ launches an Internet appeal for Babitsky’s release.

10 February

• Ambassador David Johnson, U.S. representative to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, calls on Moscow to reveal the truth about

Babitsky.

• Amnesty International issues another appeal to the Russian government to ‘‘immediately make public the whereabouts and order the release’’ of Babitsky

• European Commission President Romano Prodi said that the conmuission

wants to send a mission to Chechnya to gather information about missing RFE/

RL journalist Andrei Babitsky. The EU commissioner for enlargement, Guenter

Verheugen, said the commission supports the demands of the OSCE that acting

Russian President Vladimir Putin disclose Babitsky’s whereabouts.

28

• Bislan Gantemirov, the head of a pro-Moscow Chechen militia, said his group

is not involved in the detention or disappearance of Andrei Babitsky, saying

such reports are ‘‘a total invention.’’

• The U.S. State Department demanded a full and candid accounting from Russia

about the fate of missing correspondent Andrei Babitsky. Russian officials claim

Babitsky is alive and well but they have offered no proof. In another development, at least 20 members of the U.S. Congress demanded Babitsky’s release

in a letter to acting Russian President Vladimir Putin.

9 February

• Russian television broadcasts a second video showing Babitsky who is heard

saying that it is February 6 and that he wants to go home. The clip provides

no information about his exact whereabouts. Meanwhile, a former spokesman

for Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov says that Chechens are holding

Babitsky, an assertion Maskhadov’s current spokesman reiterates is not true.

• Reporters sans Frontiers again appeals to ‘‘all actors in the Chechen conflict to

guarantee the safety of journalist Andrei Babitsky.’’

• State Duma today voted down a proposal to summon the Interior Minister

(Vladimir Rushailo) and the acting Prosecutor General (Vladimir Ustinov) to

discuss the Babitsky case.

• The Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists has faxed an open

letter to acting Russian President Vladimir Putin saying Babitsky’s alleged exchange for POWs is unacceptable and a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

8 February

• RFE/RL Moscow bureau purchases a video tape late at night from an unidentified man that shows Babitsky expressing wish to go home. In it, he says the

recording was made on Sunday, February 6. That is after he was purportedly

turned over to the Chechens in exchange for two Russian soldiers.

• The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe demands that Russia

give proof by tomorrow that Babitsky is alive.

• The Foreign Correspondents’ Association in Moscow calls for Babitsky’s release,

describing his treatment at the hands of the Russian authorities as ‘‘a gross violation of human rights’’ and a clear threat to all journalists working in Russia.

7 February

• US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says that the United States is ‘‘very

unhappy’’ over the Babitsky case and that it ‘‘holds the Russians responsible for

what happens to him.’’

• The International Federation of Journalists called on the Russian government

to ‘‘come clean’’ on the fate of Babitsky and noted in its statement that there

were serious problems with the film clip Russian officials released that purports

to show Babitsky being handed over to the Chechens.

• Russian Federal Security Services chief Nikolai Patrushev said Babitsky is

‘‘alive’’ but that he does not know where Babitsky is staying. ‘‘That is not our

business.’’

• Sergei Prokopov, a spokesman for the office of the Russian prosecutor general

said that a summons had been issued for Babitsky to appear and answer questions about new evidence in his case.

6 February

• John Podesta, White House chief of staff, said that the United States was ‘‘very

concerned’’ about Babitsky’s fate. ‘‘We have made our view known to the Russian government; we’ve pressed them on this issue.’’

5 February

• Russian human rights activist Yelena Bonner issues a public appeal to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) asking it to meet in extraordinary session to discuss the Babitsky case.

• Chechen President Asian Maskhadov tells RFEIRL in a telephone interview

that his government has no information about the fate of Andrei Babitsky.

4 February

• Ludmila Babitskaya says that she has not heard from her husband for more

than 24 hours after the Russian authorities said they released him or alternatively said they handed him over to Chechen forces in exchange for Russian

prisoners of war.

29

• Chechen Foreign Minister Ilias Akhmadov says that no exchange of Russian

prisoners of war for Babitsky took place and that the Chechen leadership has

no news of Babitsky’s whereabouts.

• Russian General Valery Manilov says at a press conference that ‘‘everything

would be all right or even good, and maybe we could even speak of gratitude

[to Babitsky] and even of an award, if it weren’t for the shady side of the question—Andrei’s efforts to return to the embrace of the bandit formations and to

be with them.’’

• Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Broadcasting Board of Governors Chairman Marc Nathanson, and the World Press Freedom Committee

add their names to the growing list of individuals and groups calling on the

Russian government to provide information about the fate of Andrei Babitsky.

3 February

• Russian news agency APN Novosti accuses Babitsky of ‘‘intimate relations’’ with

a Chechen field commander.

• Russian Presidential spokesman Sergei Yastrzhembsky says that Russian officials have exchanged Babitsky for three Russian prisoners of war. Later

Yastrzhembsky says that a film of the incident is making its way to Moscow.

• RFE/RL issues a press release condemning this reported exchange.

• US State Department spokesman James Foley says that if these reports prove

to be true, it ‘‘would raise very serious questions’’ about Moscow’s commitments

to the rule of law.

• Vladimir Ustinov, acting Russian prosecutor general, says Babitsky was exchanged, then changes his story and says Babitsky was released and went over

to the Chechens.

2 February

• Committee to Protect Journalists expresses alarm at Babitsky’s detention and

concern about his current condition.

• Russian forces detain London Times bureau chief in Chechnya.

• Acting Russian Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov travels to Chechnya to

probe the Babitsky case.

• Moscow’s Rublev Museum contacted by prosecutors to evaluate icon reportedly

in the possession of Babitsky at the time of his arrest.

• Moscow officials said that Babitsky would be transferred from Naursky district

to Gudermes and then to Moscow. Once in Moscow, these officials said, he

would be released on his own recognizance.

1 February

• Ryazan committee to defend Babitsky issues an appeal on Babitsky’s behalf.

Other organizations across the Russian Federation issue similar statements.

31 January

• US Senators Jesse Helms and Joseph Biden send a letter to acting Russian

President Vladimir Putin calling for Babitsky’s release.

• Reporters sans Frontiers calls on Russian Federation justice minister to explain

the Babitsky case.

• US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says that she discussed Babitsky case

with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov.

• RFE/RL issues a press release saying that Moscow is dragging its heels on releasing Babitsky and thus raising questions about his physical well-being.

• Andrei Korotkov, chief of the Russian government’s information department,

says in Davos that he hopes Babitsky will be released. He blames Babitsky’s

detention on local officials and says Moscow was not involved.

• Russian Presidential spokesman Sergei Yastrzhembsky says that Babitsky is

being held in pretrial detention in Chechnya’s Naursky district.

30 January

• Evgeniy Kiselev says on NTV’s Itogi program that one of former Russian president Boris Yeltsin’s first acts after the August 1991 coup was to give RFE/RL

permission to open a bureau in Moscow while one of current acting Russian

president Vladimir Putin’s first actions was to arrest an RFEIRL correspondent.

• Prosecutors call Ludmila Babitskaya in Moscow to say that her husband is alive

and well in the Naursky district of Chechnya.

30

29 January

• Yuri Biryukov, head of the main department for the North Caucasus of the Russian Federation prosecutor general’s office, goes to Chechnya on acting President Vladimir Putin’s behalf to clarify the case of Babitsky.

• Presidential spokesman Sergei Yastrzhembsky says that he first learned of

Babitsky’s arrest from a news story on 28 January. ‘‘Before that moment, nobody knew Babitsky’s whereabouts.’’

• ITAR-Tass reports former RFE/RL staffer Vladimir Matusevich’s statement that

the entire Babitsky story was ‘‘a fabrication’’ by RFE/RL to attract attention

and keep the station in operation.

28 January

• Russian media officials tell RFEIRL that Babitsky will be released with apologies.

• Russian Federation Interior Ministry spokesman Oleg Aksyonov says that

Babitsky had been arrested on 23 January for lacking accreditation.

• Russian security officials told Interfax that Babitsky had been charged with

participating in ‘‘an illegal armed formation’’ under the terms of Article 208,

par. 2 of the Russian criminal code.

27 January

• OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Freimut Duve sends a letter to

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov on behalf of Babitsky.

• US State Department spokesman Jamie Rubin notes Babitsky’s disappearance,

expresses ‘‘concern,’’ but notes that reporters had been warned of the dangers

of going into an area where military actions were taking place.

• Babitsky reported by RFE/RL reporters to be in detention in Urus-Martan

• Wire services break story that Babitsky is missing.

• Babitsky reportedly formally charged on this date.

26 January

• Russian Presidential spokesman Sergei Yastrzhembsky says that Babitsky ‘‘left

Grozny and then disappeared. As far as we are concerned, his security is not

guaranteed.’’

• Russian security services say they, have no information on Babitsky’s whereabouts.

• Russian Union of Journalists issues an appeal for Babitsky’s release.

• Ludmila Babitskaya says she believes her husband is in the hands of the Russian authorities.

25 January

• RFE/RL receives reports that Babitsky has been detained.

24 January

• Russian officials return photographs they had confiscated to Ludmila

Babitskaya.

18 January

• Babitsky reportedly detained. Other reports suggest he was detained on 16 or

17 January. But later reports say he was not formally arrested until 27 January.

15 January

• RFE/RL has last telephone contact with Babitsky.

13 January

• Babitsky files report on heavy Russian bombing of Grozny.

8 January

• Russian security agents raid Babitsky apartment in Moscow and confiscate several items. Earlier, Ludmila Babitskaya is called to militia station after she

tries to pick up photographs that had been developed.

29 December 1999

• Russian forces detain seven international journalists near Grozny in Chechnya.

31

27 December

• Russian Information Committee in Chechnya accuses Babitsky of ‘‘conspiracy

with Chechen rebels’’ after Babitsky broadcast a story the day before on Russian military actions there that the RIC found objectionable.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. First, I want to get Andrei Babitsky

here to testify before this committee, and I have an idea that these

gentlemen with the television will not be the only ones here to

cover that.

Mr. DINE. I wish I could produce him right now, but he went

from the press conference to the hospital, so he can have a thorough medical examination—

The CHAIRMAN. Right.

Mr. DINE. —which I personally have ordered that—

The CHAIRMAN. We can take him any time we can get him.

Mr. DINE. I will do what I can to get him here as soon as possible.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Secondly, I am instructing, respectfully, the staff for the majority on this committee, and I know that

they will be joined enthusiastically by the minority, or the Democrat, I want an updated resolution prepared to be presented to the

Senate and to be voted on, and I want it to be complete, with as

much information as you can work out from testimony here today.

I would like that to happen as quickly as possible, and I know

you will do that.

Thirdly, I want to get a transcript of what each of you has said

this morning, and I think we ought to use that every time the Senate has a quorum call, but no business to conduct. I think we ought

to read part of the testimony. We would do that with careful selection, of course, and so we will begin on that.

Now, let me ask some quick questions. Most of them are answerable. I was going to ask you about Babitsky, the question of who

held him, the Russians, the pro-Russian Chechnya group, or the

Chechnya resistance, and I know the answer to that.

How would you assess the Clinton Administration’s efforts to ensure the safety and release of Andrei Babitsky?

Mr. DINE. From the beginning we tried to keep the U.S. embassy

in Moscow informed, as well as the embassy in Prague. Almost everyday I was on the phone to our ambassador in Prague, John

Shattuck, who is very helpful keen on human rights issues. We

welcomed those times that the administration met Russian officials

and spoke out about the regression taking place in that society and

by the Putin administration.

There were times when I urged more, and I am not bashful, as

you know, and I have said that several ways and in several

phrases. But overall, the good news is, the man was found and is

nearly free. I do report to you, sir, that your letter of the 31st of

January, the two Senate resolutions that passed on the 24th of

February, had an impact in Moscow.

I am the only one on our Prague staff who has had experience

on Capitol Hill; and I tried to tell them that this is a co-equal

branch of government, and take every word seriously.

The CHAIRMAN. Good.

Mr. DINE. So those were shots in the arm, if you would like. I’ve

switched my medical words, because I had said earlier it was a

32

shot to the bow of Russia’s policymakers, but in our bureau in Moscow, in our Prague headquarters, this was seen as real encouragement—

The CHAIRMAN. Good.

Mr. DINE. —and it counts. It counts.

The CHAIRMAN. I want Mr. Bouckaert to comment on that same

question.

Mr. BOUCKAERT. Well, I am not as familiar with specific actions

that the U.S. government took in the case of Mr. Babitsky, but I

do think that in terms of the more general abuses in Chechnya the

administration should know that the Russian media pays a lot of

attention to what the U.S. says, and when Ms. Albright was in

Moscow, and when Clinton spoke out here about the abuses in

Chechnya, about their general relationship with the Russian government, it would certainly seem as an endorsement for the Russian government, or for Mr. Putin in particular.

The administration has to be careful about what it says, because

oftentimes their comments get interpreted as support, not just for

Mr. Putin, but also for this war in Chechnya, and the fact that they

have not spoken out stronger makes that an easy message to pass

on.

The CHAIRMAN. By the way, let us do seven minutes, and then,

of course, set it for—so I will not overrun the seven minutes. Ms.

AbuZayd, your comments on that.

Ms. ABUZAYD. Well, from the humanitarian side, I have to say

that we have very good support from the U.S. government, both in

terms of the things that they give us for our program, but also the

pressure that they put on the Russian government for us to have

access in Ingushetia and inside Chechnya.

That being said, I think we should acknowledge that this is often

the easier part, and something that we have to go beyond, because

we often feel, as the humanitarian actors, we are put out in front

to say we are doing something, salving the conscience of people

who want to do something, so that they do not have to attack the

real political problems and the real root causes of the problem.

So we very much appreciate what we are able to do, but it is not

enough. It is addressing the symptoms, and the other actors have

to be there to solve the other problems.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bouckaert, do you think the United States

government has adequately addressed the need to stop the indiscriminate killing and atrocities in Chechnya?

Mr. BOUCKAERT. That is an easy question. No, I do not think

they have. They mince their words oftentimes when they talk about

abuses, they talk about abuses by both sides, suggesting that this

is kind of a very cruel conflict, but the fact is that the vast amount

of abuses in this war have been committed by Russian forces.

The U.S. government has not spoken out strongly enough about

the abuses in this war, and it certainly has not taken the actions

needed, the actions it can afford to take to stop these abuses.

Mr. DINE. Mr. Chairman, can I just add one more thing to that?

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. Sure.

Mr. DINE. There is an assumption in this city that during the

first Chechen war and during this one, that somehow or another

Yeltsin, and now Putin, was what Lincoln was during our parVerDate 29-MAR-10 10:49 Jun 05, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 63578 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
33

ticular civil conflict. This has nothing to do with South Carolina or

nothing to do with our Civil War. This is an uncivil war.

I just want to reinforce what these two have said today. We are

dealing with the most venal of behavior that we have seen in a

long, long time, and it has to be addressed in those terms, and

those terms only.

The CHAIRMAN. Right. Now, I want to ask you, how many civilians do you think have been killed in the conflict over there?

Mr. BOUCKAERT. Well, that is a very difficult question to answer,

because the human rights watch is not allowed to go into

Chechnya, and neither are international journalists.

We know that the Russian government has understated the

number of civilians as well as the number of Russian soldiers

killed, but it is certain that the number of Russian soldiers killed

is somewhere in the region of 3,000, and I would imagine that the

number of civilians killed is at least—

The CHAIRMAN. How about resistance, how many have they

killed?

Mr. BOUCKAERT. I think that the number of Chechen fighters

killed is probably smaller. We have not documented any large-scale

killings by the Chechen fighters, but we have documented many

other abuses committed by them.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the Russian commanders are involved to whatever extent, or any extent, in the atrocities that have

been documented thus far?

Mr. BOUCKAERT. I have interviewed many people who informed

the Russian generals of ongoing abuses, including ongoing killings,

and we have no evidence that those Russian generals took any

steps to stop those killings. At the very least, their failure to act

in the face of these vast abuses in Chechnya makes them complicit

in the abuses.

In terms of the bombings that are taking place, the indiscriminate and disproportionate bombings, that certainly is a decision

made by the military command.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, how about your investigation, has there

been any interference with those investigations?

Mr. BOUCKAERT. Well, we have to be very careful about our security. We are not allowed to go into Chechnya itself. We are denied

access to Chechnya by the Ministry of Defense, and in the face of

what happened to Babitsky, we have to be very careful.

My Russian colleague has repeatedly been interrogated by the

FSB, the intelligence service of the Russian government.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you folks looked into these so-called filtration camps? Have you been granted access to any of them?

Mr. BOUCKAERT. No, we have not been granted access. I interviewed a significant number of people independently from each

other about the filtration camps, and we know that there is well

over a thousand men in those filtration camps now that have suffered severe beatings, torture, and we have documented several

cases of rape from independent witnesses who have given us the

identify of the people who were raped in those camps.

There was a visit arranged a few days ago for journalists to one

of the filtration camps. We have strong evidence to suggest that

that filtration camp was cleaned up for the visit, and it was newly

34

repainted, and just a few carefully selected prisoners were paraded

in front of these journalists, and clearly told what to say.

The CHAIRMAN. How about prisoners of war, what has happened

to them?

Mr. BOUCKAERT. It is very unclear what has happened to prisoners of war. We have evidence that Chechen fighters have executed Russian soldiers during this campaign, but there certainly

are a large number of men, both prisoners of war, as well as civilians, who are unaccounted for to date.

The CHAIRMAN. My time has expired. We started late, so I am

not going to spend any more time on mine.

The Senator from Minnesota.

Senator WELLSTONE. I will defer to the Senator from Wisconsin,

because I had to go to a markup in another committee. I apologize.

Then I will follow Senator Feingold. Thank you.

Senator FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Minnesota.

The CHAIRMAN. You have seven minutes.

Senator FEINGOLD. Yes, sir. I will not even use all of it, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. Bouckaert, we all read reports indicating that the campaign

in Chechnya is extremely popular in Russia. Apart from the journalists Mr. Dine was talking about, have any prominent Russian

figures, policymakers, intellectuals, non-government activists condemned the violence in Chechnya and the abuses occurring there?

What sort of picture of that can you give me?

Mr. BOUCKAERT. Well, there are two NGOs which we work closely with, the one is Memor Yau, who is a Russian human rights

NGO; the other one is the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers, and

they have both spoken very strongly about these abuses in

Chechnya, and about the conduct of the war in general.

Unfortunately, most of the Russian media has given a very slanted presentation of this war. They have barely documented the kind

of abuses that are taking place in the war, and they only contact

us when we talk about abuses by Chechen fighters. There is a lot

of public support in Russia for this war, partly because the abuses

are not being discussed.

Senator FEINGOLD. What about prominent artists, writers, or intellectuals?

Mr. BOUCKAERT. I have been in Ingushetia for the last three

months, so I have had limited access to the media there. I will pass

that question on.

Mr. DINE. During the Babitsky saga, Elena Bonner, the famous

human rights activist and outspoken human rights leader, spoke

out, and she also nominated Babitsky for awards for his war correspondence journalism.

Certainly, the democrat, Mr. Yavlinsky has also spoken out, but

I think fewer and fewer people are listening to him, and that is

part of the problem. So yes, the mainstream is definitely in line,

highly approving Putin policies in Chechnya.

Senator FEINGOLD. For any of you, how credible is the investigation into abuses in Chechnya as being conducted by President

Putin’s representative? Is it adequately staffed by human rights

professionals?

35

Mr. DINE. I have asked the same question, Senator, and everybody tells me that he is just for show.

Senator FEINGOLD. Mr. Bouckaert.

Mr. BOUCKAERT. I think that we should realize that there are

stretchers in place in the Russian government who are supposed to

address these abuses, such as the military procurator. They have

taken no action to investigate the war crimes committed in

Chechnya, so we are quite skeptical about this new appointment.

Regardless of what the new appointment does, I think it is important that an independent international monitoring presence is

established, and that these abuses are investigated at the international level. The international community must monitor what

the Russian authorities are doing, in terms of investigating these

abuses, but they also have to establish the body of evidence to

make sure that these people are held accountable for their abuses

in Chechnya.

Senator FEINGOLD. Ms. AbuZayd, did you want to respond?

Ms. ABUZAYD. I would just add, as I mentioned in my statement,

that we have had dealings with the new appointee, who is the director of the Federal Migration Service, which is our main interlocutor in Russia, and we are hopeful that he might do some of the

right things, if, as you say, he gets an adequate staff, and the independents still need to be added to this whole process, as Mr.

Bouckaert said.

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you all for your testimony, as the

Chairman said. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I want to

thank you for your leadership. We were just talking to one another,

and I really want to work with you in drafting another resolution,

and raising the temperature here, and really putting the focus on

this.

I think we can do that together with many other Senators, Senator Biden, and I hope the whole committee.

I am going to use first names as well. Peter, I just think you do

heroic work.

Mr. BOUCKAERT. Thank you.

Senator WELLSTONE. I admire the work that you do. You may

have said this, but I want to make sure that I understand it, or

that it is repeated again: has the infrastructure—homes, schools,

hospitals—in Chechnya been specifically targeted?

Mr. BOUCKAERT. Yes. We have documented several attacks on

hospitals. I remember driving through one town in Chechnya, and

the two buildings that were the most destroyed, were the school

and the mosque in the one town. There has been a tremendous destruction of the infrastructure in general, but it seems that schools,

mosques, and hospitals were specifically targeted on numerous occasions.

Senator WELLSTONE. How difficult is it to collect the evidence

and is some of the evidence destroyed?

Mr. BOUCKAERT. Certainly, we are concerned that evidence of

war crimes in Grozny is being destroyed at the moment. The city

has been completely shut off from the local residents, as well as

from the international community.

36

We have been told by witnesses that they have been specifically

told not to talk to the international community about war crimes,

and because of our lack of access, evidence has been destroyed just

because it deteriorates, and it is buried in many cases.

Senator WELLSTONE. Karen, how important is it to get human

rights monitors into the area around Chechnya, and is the Russian

military capable of investigating itself?

Ms. ABUZAYD. I do not know about the capability of the Russian

military. I would say that we need, as Peter has said, independent

people looking at this. We have put human rights monitors in, we

hope. We hope that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

will now take this on as well, and try to get to these people.

Just to say, though, even with our work, with our humanitarian

work, we are truly well escorted at all times, and there are places

we never are shown—

Senator WELLSTONE. Because you need to be escorted for your

own security and safety.

Ms. ABUZAYD. We have asked for that ourselves, but we are not

sure, even in Ingushetia, that we really have reached all the people

there, because our movements are controlled.

Senator WELLSTONE. In other words, you have depended on the

military, because you cannot go in without them, but on the other

hand, by going in with them—

Ms. ABUZAYD. Yes.

Senator WELLSTONE. —it puts some restriction on where you go.

Ms. ABUZAYD. Yes.

Senator WELLSTONE. And then finally, Tom, with the fall of

Shatoi yesterday, the Russians claim that the Chechens have been

defeated. Do you think that is true, or do you think the Chechens

have the capacity for effective guerilla war? In other words, do you

think this war is going to continue?

Mr. DINE. I think this is an endless war, as history shows. The

Russian–Chechen conflict has been going on for 400 years or so. It

took on great intensity with Peter the Great in the early part of

the 18th century. There was a general in 1818, Senator, who wrote

a letter to the czar and said he would not be at peace until every

Chechen was killed. That policy has basically continued up to the

present.

Mr. BOUCKAERT. If I could just add to that. It has been a consistent policy strategy by the Russian government to suggest that

this war will soon be over, because they are trying to limit international criticism of their mopping-up operation.

After they announced again that they killed the rebel commander

Raduyev, there was a headline in the Russian newspaper saying,

‘‘Russia Kills Raduyev Again,’’ because they have claimed three

times now that they have killed him. I think that is just one more

example of you laugh or you cry. We are laughing, but—.

I think it is important to understand that the brutal campaign

of the Russian government in Chechnya has led to a radicalization

of the opposition. It is much more difficult to bring people back to

the table, and there certainly are enough fighters left to continue

this war for a long time.

37

The international community needs to keep its attention. We

cannot just say this war is going to be over soon, let us just wait

a few more months.

Senator WELLSTONE. Well, I want to thank each of you. I have

such respect for your work. Mr. Chairman, I think it was Camus

who once said murder is never legitimate.

So I do not defend the actions of all of the Chechens and what

has been done, but given now what we now see, this is just a—a

human rights question is too mild of a way of putting it. I mean

this is really a systematic slaughter and murder of people, and I

think it is very important that the Senate depict a profile on this

in a major way. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Next is Senator Biden.

Senator BIDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being

so late. This is obviously a very important hearing. Unfortunately,

we all have more than one duty, and I am on the judiciary committee, and there is a major crime bill that I have introduced. I

was asked to speak to the National Sheriff’s Association downtown,

and I committed to do that, and I apologize for being late.

My staff briefly has told me almost all the questions I would

want to ask, and your testimony was graphic and compelling. I

have two questions, one of which may not have been asked, I hope.

If it has, just tell me, and I will literally read it in the record. I

do not want to trespass too much more on your time.

Is there anything that, from a broad policy perspective, the next

United States president should read from Putin’s pursuit of the

war in Chechnya, and does it have implications, if you are prepared to speak to it, for how Russia will deal with other parts of

what is still the territory of Russia and former republics of the Soviet Union, where the Islamic faith predominates?

Tell me a little bit about how much of this relates to the attitude

of Putin, in your view, and the Russian military, towards Islam. I

find an incredible dichotomy between the way in which the Russian

agencies, and possibly the Kremlin itself, will promote and deal

with Iran in terms of missiles and missile technology, and yet deal

so brutally with Chechnya. I do think you are dead right, though,

Tom, that these old wounds run centuries deep.

But is it just that? Is there something unique about Chechnya

alone, or is there something more that relates to the present Russian leadership’s attitude toward Islam? Is that a fair question?

Mr. DINE. I will try to address what you have just said. I like

the way you addressed the question, so it allows us to talk about

the future.

First of all, I do not think the United States policy should be

fitted for just one set of issues. They are complicated issues, such

as the future of the ABM Treaty.

I think we have to have a comprehensive policy toward Russia.

A comprehensive policy is not just political-military issues, but the

very issues we have been discussing here today. As Senator

Wellstone just said, we need to start with human rights.

These are issues that are critical to us. If we do not address basic

values, then who are we? That is what has been so important for

all of us at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

38

The issue is not just Babitsky the human being, and a colleague,

and a father, and a husband, but it is freedom of the press, and

the freedoms that go with the freedom of the press, and it’s the future of a relationship of a nation that wants to, as I said earlier

Senator Biden, not to deal with the future, that wants to go back

to the past. I urge you to think of these things comprehensively.

One other thought. Tolstoy wrote a short story in 1842 about the

Chechen war at that time entitled ‘‘Haji Marat.’’ Today’s war and

cruelties are summarized there. There is an intensity in Moscow

for Chechens that is not seen towards Uzbeks, Tajiks, or Georgians. There is something about the Russian-Chechen relationship

that is offbalance, that brings out the worst in human behavior.

Senator BIDEN. Do you all agree with that?

Mr. BOUCKAERT. Well, I think there is some anti-Islamic element

to this war, but I think there is a lot more about the new willingness by Russia to use abusive powerful military options. I am concerned about the rights of this new nationalism in Russia, which

has come along with Putin in this war.

Russia feels like a small world power now that wants to regain

its role in the world stage, and I hear a lot of people saying in Moscow when I am there that we need a strong leader like Putin to

regain our place on the world stage, and suddenly it is not just

Chechnya, and Ingushetia, and the other Islamic republics in the

region who are concerned about this, but Georgia, a Christian

country, which is certainly as much concerned about the new assertiveness and militarialism in Russia.

Senator BIDEN. Thank you. Karen?

Ms. ABUZAYD. Yes. This is outside my humanitarian scope, your

question, but I certainly would say that Islam is not the main feature of the problem, and that we all have to watch our governments on satanizing Islam.

I think even when Peter spoke about the Chechen fighters, the

ones he was saying were the worst were the Muslim Chechens.

Well, they are all Islam Chechens. So it is something we all need

to be aware of.

Mr. DINE. There is an issue that we discussed internally at Radio

Free Europe/Radio Liberty about what does this mean for Russia’s

near abroad policy. Russia’s neighbors do have doubts about

Putin’s foreign policy thinking. It was graphically summarized by

one of our Central Asian service directors, when he said, ‘‘There is

a new man in power. We can saw it at the CIS gathering in early

January in Moscow that if Putin wears a striped tie today, then all

the other leaders of the near abroad countries will wear a striped

tie.

There is caution and deep-seated fear about Russian power creating a new sphere of influence over them.

So as I said, human rights is part of our policy approach, so are

missiles and arms sales, and how Russia behaves toward its neighbors.

Senator BIDEN. Mr. Chairman, if I could take 30 more seconds.

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. Sure.

Senator BIDEN. Let me tell you the one part that I worry about

in terms of the Administration’s policy. I am not asking you to comment. I think the way in which, my observation, the State DepartVerDate 29-MAR-10 10:49 Jun 05, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 63578 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
39

ment handled the dramatization of the capture and the disappearance of the press representative was wrong.

I think they were so worried about affecting other aspects of the

relationship that are being negotiated now, that they tip-toed

around what they should have done.

I will not be overly specific here, but literally, in terms of not letting press in the country know until ten minutes before that they

are going to be on. I mean that is malarkey.

But I have seen that sort of thing in every administration, and

everybody gets clientized in this process, and their little piece is

the piece that they want to make sure does not get rolled, and if

there is something else important, they are afraid to act.

I think we have to have a franker relationship with Russia. I

predict to you, for what it is worth, my predictions are usually

wrong, but I predict to you that Putin is going to cooperate with

us more on the big ticket items, but he is going to become more

oppressive and anti-democratic as he moves on.

We are going to be faced with sort of a China dilemma here, in

a broad sense, where you going to have a circumstance where the

Chinese are cooperating with us on trade, there is liberalization,

there are a lot of things that make sense for us, and at the same

time they are still cracking down on the free press, they are cracking down on any dissidents.

I think the next president is going to be faced with an interesting

dilemma here. You may very well get cooperation on nuclear weapons, while at the same time they are crushing democratic movements in other places, or limiting what is thought to be, by the

West, democratic institutions.

I think we are in for an interesting ride here, but I think the controlling feature of it, Tom, should be frankness. I do not mean

demagoging, I mean just frankness, frank confrontation on the

places we don’t agree.

Where I might or might not disagree with the other two witnesses, I didn’t hear your testimony, so I do not know, is I do not

think that the way to respond is to cut off all other intercourse

with Russia on, for example, START II. I am not suggesting you

said that. I am just trying to make the point that we should be

frank.

Let me conclude by—Dr. Haltzel, who is one of the main reasons

I love having him on my staff, he is so knowledgeable about history, he passed me the following note. ‘‘On the other hand, the 19th

century writer Lermontov romanticized the people in the

Caucasus.’’

So it is nice to have, well, I always kid him, my double PhD behind me here. He does not really have two PhD’s, but he has the

drawback of having gone to Harvard and Yale, and it worries me,

but it is one of these things. So I am going to have to read both

to find out where the truth lies.

Anyway, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

the good work you are doing, and for not relenting on—

The CHAIRMAN. We all feel that way about it. It has been a stimulating morning, and it has given us some guideposts about what

we should do further in the Senate.

40

This is one time that I am very proud of the Senate for its having

undertaken this. We have not gone far enough, but if I have anything to do with it, we will go much farther.

Senator BIDEN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that my statement be

placed in the record?

The CHAIRMAN. You bet.

Senator BIDEN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it certainly will be.

[An statement by Senator Biden appears in the Appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. The Senators who had to go to other committee

meetings and were not able to be here may want to file some questions in writing, and I know you-all will accommodate them to the

best of your ability.

If there will be no further business, I thank you very, very much.

Have a good day. We stand in recess.

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

(41)

APPENDIX

AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD BY SENATOR BIDEN

At the time of the hearing on March 1, 2000, I was unaware of certain actions

that the Department of State had taken with regard to the detention of Mr.

Babitsky.

In fact, Secretary Albright, Undersecretaries Pickering, Lieberman, and U.S. Ambassador to Russia Collins had repeatedly approached the Russian Government,

urging in the strongest terms that Mr. Babitsky be freed.

In addition, Undersecretary of State Lieberman had visited the Moscow office of

Radio Liberty, had met with Mrs. Babitsky, and had subsequently made a strong

statement to the press.

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

Maps

52

53

54

Æ